HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.council.163-25RESOLUTION # 163
(Series of 2025)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING THE UTE PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT PLAN.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a management
plan for the Ute Properties, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit " A";
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the Ute
Properties Management Plan a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated
herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said management
plan on behalf of the City of Aspen.
RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED FINALLY by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 16' day of December 2025.
144�4 & "W�ft
1 Richards, Mayor
I, Nicole Henning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council
of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, December 16th, 2025.
UTE CEMETERY
Management Plan APPENDIX
December 2025 Courtesy of Aspen Historical Society
UTE CEMETERY
Management Plan Appendix
December 2025
Contents
Appendix A: Historic Maps .................................. 4-15
Appendix B: 1958 BLM Patent ............................... 16
Appendix C: 1963 Council Resolution East of Aspen Addition 17
Appendix D: 1966 Council Resolution Bavaria Park ......... 18-19
Appendix E: Council Resolution Change of Park Name to Ute 20
Appendix F: 1967 Ute Childrens Park Proposal ............. 21-39
Appendix G: 1971 Colorado Genealogical Volume 1 ............. 40-43
Appendix H: Deed Ute Cemetery Property ................ 44
Appendix I: Deed Benedict Parcel ........................... 45
Appendix J: 1973 Ordinance Historic Overlay Ute Cemetery 46-49
Appendix K: 1980 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey ..... 50-55
Appendix L: 1981 Annex of Ute Park ........................ 56-59
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu 60-107
Appendix N: 2001 Master List of Recorded Burials, Tatanka 108-121
Appendix O: 2001 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka 122-140
Appendix P: 2001 Ute Cemetery Landscape Improvements Report 142-174
Appendix Q: 2002 National Register of Historic Places ..... 176-217
Appendix R: 2005 Ute Cemetery Woodwork Assessment .. 218-236
Appendix S: 2022 City of Aspen Historic Inventory ........ 238-245
Appendix T: 2024 Survey .................................... 246-251
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report .......... 252-306
Appendix V: 2024 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka 308-348
Appendix W: Public and Stakeholder comments .................. 350-357
5CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILSFOREWORD|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX4
Appendix A Historic Maps: 1881 Aspen Townsite Courtesy of Aspen Historical Society Aspen Town Site Map , 1881
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 7CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS6
Appendix A Historic Maps: 1891 Aspen USGS Courtesy of USGSUSGS Map Aspen, 1891Courtesy of USGSUSGS Geology Map Aspen, 1891
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 9CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS8
Appendix A Historic Maps: 1893 Birds Eye View Map Courtesy of Aspen Historical Society, Aspen Times Collection 1893 Birds Eye View Map
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 11CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS10 Courtesy of Aspen Historical Society1896 Willits Map of Aspen
Appendix A Historic Maps: 1896 Willits Map of Aspen
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 13CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS12 Courtesy of Aspen Historical Society1901 Midland Railway Map
Appendix A Historic Maps: 1901 Midland Railway Map
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 15CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS14 Courtesy of Aspen Parks Department 1970 Survey Ute Properties
Appendix A Historic Maps: 1970 Survey
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 17CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS16
Appendix B: 1958 BLM Patent Appendix C: 1963 Council Resolution East of Aspen Addition
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 19CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS18
Appendix D: 1966 Council Resolution Bavaria Park
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 21CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS20
Appendix E: Council Resolution Change of Park Name to Ute Appendix F: 1967 Ute Childrens Park Proposal
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 23CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS22
Appendix F: 1967 Ute Childrens Park Proposal
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 25CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS24
Appendix F: 1967 Ute Childrens Park Proposal
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 27CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS26
Appendix F: 1967 Ute Childrens Park Proposal
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 29CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS28
Appendix F: 1967 Ute Childrens Park Proposal
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 31CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS30
Appendix F: 1967 Ute Childrens Park Proposal
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 33CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS32
Appendix F: 1967 Ute Childrens Park Proposal
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 35CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS34
Appendix F: 1967 Ute Childrens Park Proposal
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 37CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS36
Appendix F: 1967 Ute Childrens Park Proposal
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 39CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS38
Appendix F: 1967 Ute Childrens Park Proposal
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 41CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS40
Appendix G: 1971 Colorado Genealogical Etcetera Volume 1 Cemeter-
ies of Pitkin Co1880s-1980s
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 43CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS42
Appendix G: 1971 Colorado Genealogical Etcetera Volume 1 Cemeter-
ies of Pitkin Co1880s-1980s
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 45CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS44
Appendix H: Deed Ute Cemetery Property Appendix I: Deed Benedict Parcel
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 47CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS46
Appendix J: 1973 Ordinance Historic Overlay Ute Cemetery
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 49CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS48
Appendix J: 1973 Ordinance Historic Overlay Ute Cemetery
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 51CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS50
Appendix K: 1980 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 53CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS52
Appendix K: 1980 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 55CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS54
Appendix K: 1980 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 57CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS56
Appendix L: 1981 Annex of Ute Park
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 59CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS58
Appendix L: 1981 Annex of Ute Park
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 61CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS60
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 63CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS62
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 65CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS64
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 67CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS66
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 69CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS68
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 71CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS70
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 73CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS72
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 75CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS74
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 77CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS76
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 79CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS78
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 81CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS80
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 83CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS82
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 85CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS84
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 87CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS86
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 89CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS88
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 91CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS90
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 93CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS92
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 95CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS94
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 97CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS96
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 99CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS98
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 101CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS100
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 103CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS102
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 105CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS104
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 107CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS106
Appendix M: 1996 Report on Conditions of Cemeteries, Vinita Sidhu
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 109CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS108
Appendix N: 2001 Master List of Recorded Burials, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 111CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS110
Appendix N: 2001 Master List of Recorded Burials, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 113CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS112
Appendix N: 2001 Master List of Recorded Burials, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 115CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS114
Appendix N: 2001 Master List of Recorded Burials, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 117CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS116
Appendix N: 2001 Master List of Recorded Burials, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 119CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS118
Appendix N: 2001 Master List of Recorded Burials, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 121CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS120
Evergreen aka Ute Cemetery Index
Name Born Death Extra Source
Allen,Nancy Katherine 1850 Aug 21, 1885
wife of John C. Allen – This grave marker is in the
AHS collection accession number 1984.035.0001
Bacon,John D.June 25,1889 Member of the Aspen Hose Company No.1.Newspaper
Eldridge (Eldredge),Clara C.June 9,1847 Nov.18, 1891
wife of J.R. Eldredge- This grave marker is in the
AHS collection accession number 1992.038.0001.Newspaper
Jefferies,Lillie 1886 Nov.1888
This grave marker is in the AHS collection accession
number 1998.023.2009.
Clark,James 9/10/1922 St.Mary's Funer
Connors,Mary 7/5/1918 died from heart failure St.Mary's Funer
Green, Thomas 11/23/1917 died of old age St.Mary's Funer
Healy,John 4/4/1926 died of chronic interstitial nephritis, indigent St.Mary's Funer
Jordan,Mary 11/11/1928 died of heart trouble St.Mary's Funer
Shusterich,Peter 12/10/1926 burned to death in his home,possibly 11/28/1926 St.Mary's Funer
Walsh,Cecelia Mary 10/21/1912 died in Denver while at college St.Mary's Funer
Walsh,William 10/24/1920 died by suicide,former police captain St.Mary's Funer
Ybro,Lorenzo 7/11/1917 from Mexico,died at Citizen's Hospital,died of pneu St.Mary's Funer
Wheeler, Infant son 8/16/1895 infant son of Mr. & Mrs. B. Clark Wheeler ADT, 8.18.1895
Appendix N: 2001 Master List of Recorded Burials, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 123CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS122
Appendix O: 2001 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 125CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS124
Appendix O: 2001 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 127CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS126
Appendix O: 2001 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 129CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS128
Appendix O: 2001 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 131CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS130
Appendix O: 2001 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 133CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS132
Appendix O: 2001 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 135CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS134
Appendix O: 2001 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 137CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS136
Appendix O: 2001 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 139CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS138
Appendix O: 2001 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 141CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS140
Appendix O: 2001 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 143CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS142
Appendix P: 2001 Ute Cemetery Landscape Improvements Report, BHA
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 145CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS144
Appendix P: 2001 Ute Cemetery Landscape Improvements Report, BHA
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 147CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS146
Appendix P: 2001 Ute Cemetery Landscape Improvements Report, BHA
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 149CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS148
Appendix P: 2001 Ute Cemetery Landscape Improvements Report, BHA
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 151CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS150
Appendix P: 2001 Ute Cemetery Landscape Improvements Report, BHA
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 153CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS152
Appendix P: 2001 Ute Cemetery Landscape Improvements Report, BHA
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 155CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS154
Appendix P: 2001 Ute Cemetery Landscape Improvements Report, BHA
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 157CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS156
Appendix P: 2001 Ute Cemetery Landscape Improvements Report, BHA
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 159CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS158
Appendix P: 2001 Ute Cemetery Landscape Improvements Report, BHA
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 161CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS160
Appendix P: 2001 Ute Cemetery Landscape Improvements Report, BHA
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 163CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS162
Appendix P: 2001 Ute Cemetery Landscape Improvements Report, BHA
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 165CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS164
Appendix P: 2001 Ute Cemetery Landscape Improvements Report, BHA
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 167CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS166
Appendix P: 2001 Ute Cemetery Landscape Improvements Report, BHA
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 169CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS168
Appendix P: 2001 Ute Cemetery Landscape Improvements Report, BHA
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 171CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS170
Appendix P: 2001 Ute Cemetery Landscape Improvements Report, BHA
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 173CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS172
Appendix P: 2001 Ute Cemetery Landscape Improvements Report, BHA
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 175CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS174
Appendix P: 2001 Ute Cemetery Landscape Improvements Report, BHA
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 177CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS176
Appendix Q: 2002 National Register of Historic Places
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 179CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS178
Appendix Q: 2002 National Register of Historic Places
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 181CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS180
Appendix Q: 2002 National Register of Historic Places
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 183CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS182
Appendix Q: 2002 National Register of Historic Places
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 185CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS184
Appendix Q: 2002 National Register of Historic Places
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 187CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS186
Appendix Q: 2002 National Register of Historic Places
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 189CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS188
Appendix Q: 2002 National Register of Historic Places
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 191CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS190
Appendix Q: 2002 National Register of Historic Places
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 193CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS192
Appendix Q: 2002 National Register of Historic Places
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 195CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS194
Appendix Q: 2002 National Register of Historic Places
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 197CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS196
Appendix Q: 2002 National Register of Historic Places
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 199CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS198
Appendix Q: 2002 National Register of Historic Places
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 201CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS200
Appendix Q: 2002 National Register of Historic Places
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 203CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS202
Appendix Q: 2002 National Register of Historic Places
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 205CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS204
Appendix Q: 2002 National Register of Historic Places
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 207CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS206
Appendix Q: 2002 National Register of Historic Places
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 209CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS208
Appendix Q: 2002 National Register of Historic Places
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 211CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS210
Appendix Q: 2002 National Register of Historic Places
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 213CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS212
Appendix Q: 2002 National Register of Historic Places
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 215CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS214
Appendix Q: 2002 National Register of Historic Places
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 217CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS216
Appendix Q: 2002 National Register of Historic Places
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 219CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS218
Appendix R: 2005 Ute Cemetery Woodwork Assessment
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 221CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS220
Appendix R: 2005 Ute Cemetery Woodwork Assessment
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 223CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS222
Appendix R: 2005 Ute Cemetery Woodwork Assessment
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 225CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS224
Appendix R: 2005 Ute Cemetery Woodwork Assessment
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 227CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS226
Appendix R: 2005 Ute Cemetery Woodwork Assessment
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 229CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS228
Appendix R: 2005 Ute Cemetery Woodwork Assessment
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 231CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS230
Appendix R: 2005 Ute Cemetery Woodwork Assessment
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 233CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS232
Appendix R: 2005 Ute Cemetery Woodwork Assessment
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 235CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS234
Appendix R: 2005 Ute Cemetery Woodwork Assessment
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 237CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS236
Appendix R: 2005 Ute Cemetery Woodwork Assessment
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 239CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS238
2
COMMERCIAL CORE HISTORIC DISTRICT (Established via Ordinance #4 9,
Series of 1974 )
420 E. Cooper (Red Onion) (National Register), Ord. 9-1982
501 E. Cooper (I ndependence Building), Ord. 9-1982
529-531 E. Cooper, Ord. 61-1992
104 S. G alena, Ord. 16-1985
130 S. G alena (A rmory City Hall) (National Register), Ord. 38-1974
203 S. G alena (Hyman-Brand Building) (National Register), Ord. 57-1981
209 S. G alena, Ord. 34-1995
210 S. G alena (Webber Block) (National Register), Ord. 49-1989
303 S. G alena (A spen Block), Ord. 57-1981
312 S. G alena, Ord 57.-1981
302 E. Hopkins, Ord 16.-1985
309 E. Hopkins/200 S. Monarch, Ord. 36-1990
316 E. Hopkins, Ord. 1-1992
406 E. Hopkins, Ord. 58- 1995
530 E. Hopkins, Ord. 34- 1995
532 E. Hopkins, Ord. 34- 1995
534 E. Hopkins, Ord. 34- 1995
405-407 Hunter (National Register), Ord. 61 - 1992
300 E. Hyman (and Owl Cigar sign), Ord. 57-1981
314 E. Hyman, Ord. 34- 1995
328 E. Hyman (Wheeler Opera House) (National Register), Ord. 10-1973
413 E. Hyman (Riede’ s City Bakery) (National Register), Ord. 77-1981
419 E. Hyman, Ord. 17-2001
432 E. Hyman, Ord. 34- 1995
428 E. Hyman, Ord. 9-1982
501 E. Hyman (Ute City Building), Ord. 57-1981
514 E. Hyman, Ord. 6 - 2012
517 E. Hyman, Ord. 5 –2012
521 E. Hyman (Benton Building), Ord. 5 - 2012
304-308 S. G alena (A rcades), Ord. 22-2001
303 E. Main (National Register), Ord. 15-1994
309 E. Main, Ord. 56-1989
310 E. Main, Ord 5-1987
315 E. Main, Ord. 56-1989
330 E. Main (National Register),Ord. 9-1982
506 E. Main (National Register), Ord. 25-1973
533 E. Main (St. Mary’ s Church), Ord. 77-1981
100 S. Mill, Ord. 5-1987
101 S. Mill, Ord. 5-1987
204 S. Mill (Collins Block) (National Register), Ord. 9-1982
208 S. Mill, Ord. 57-1981
200 S. Monarch, Ord. 36- 1990
A spen Pedestrian Malls, Ord. 9- 2017
CITY OF ASP EN
“ THE ASP EN INV ENTORY OF HISTORIC
L ANDMARK SITES AND STRU CTU RES”
U p dated F ebru ary 2 02 2
Note: This list is provided as general inf ormation. Since it is possible that street address
numbers have changed, call A my Simon at 429-2758 to conf irm the status of any
property within the city when in doubt. The ordinance that designated the property
historic is provided af ter most addresses.
Appendix S: City of Aspen Historic Inventory
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 241CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS240
4
DESIG NATED L ANDMARK S L OCATED OU TSIDE OF THE HISTORIC
DISTRICTS
A spen Brewery Ruins, Ord. 4- 1995
A spen G rove Cemetery, Ord. 4- 1995
Boat Tow and Lif t 1 (National Register),Ord. 37-1974
710 S. A spen
720 Bay Street, Ord. 34 -1992
100 E. Bleeker, Ord. 62-1989
110 E. Bleeker, Ord. 34 - 1992
126 E. Bleeker, Ord. 5-1985
134 E. Bleeker, Ord. 25-1992
200 E. Bleeker (Community Church) (National Register), Ord. 39-1974
209 E. Bleeker, Ord. 4 - 1995
214 E. Bleeker, Ord. 7-1982, plus vacant lot created through Historic Landmark Lot Split
227 E. Bleeker, Ord. 34 - 1992
232 E. Bleeker, Ord. 34 - 1992
121 W. Bleeker, Ord. 34 - 1992
129 W. Bleeker, Ord. 34 - 1992
131 W. Bleeker, Ord. 77-1981
205 W. Bleeker, Ord. 4 - 1995
213 W. Bleeker, Ord. 10-2000
214 W. Bleeker, Ord. 11-1991
215 W. Bleeker, Ord. 5-1987
217 W. Bleeker, Ord. 34 - 1992
233 W. Bleeker, Ord. 34 - 1992
331 W. Bleeker- new house on lot created by Historic Landmark Lot Split
333 W. Bleeker (D .E. F rantz House) (National Register), Ord. 77-1981
442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer Park) (National Register), Ord. 7-1982, Ord. 41- 1993
500 W. Bleeker, Ord. 5-1987
513 W. Bleeker, Ord. 77 - 1981
605 W. Bleeker/aka 121 N. F if th Street, Ord. 77 - 1981
609 W. Bleeker- new house on a lot created by Historic Landmark Lot Split
620 W. Bleeker (Wheeler-Stallard House) (National Register), Ord. 18- 1973
631 W. Bleeker- new house on lot created by Historic Landmark Lot Split
635 W. Bleeker, Ord. 34 - 1992
735 W. Bleeker, Ord. 43-1998
118 E. Cooper, Ord. 4-1982
124 E. Cooper, Ord. 34 - 1992
135 E. Cooper (D ixon-Markle House) (National Register), Ord. 77-1981
820 E. Cooper, Ord.51, 1995
824 E. Cooper, Ord. 34 - 1992
924 E. Cooper, Ord. 7, 1996
935 E. Cooper,Ord. 34 - 1992
939 E. Cooper, Units A -E, Ord. 2-1995
1000 E. Cooper, Ord. 34 - 1992
1006 E. Cooper, Ord. 30-2000
3
MAIN STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT (Established via Ordinance #60, Series of
1976)
128 E. Main, Ord. 4-1985
201 E. Main, Ord. 50-1986
202 E. Main, Ord. 16-1985
208 E. Main, Ord. 16-1985
216 E. Main, Ord. 16-1985
220 and 230 E. Main (Cortina Lodge), Ord. 25-2010
221 E. Main, Ord. 16-1985 & Ord. 4- 1995
227 E. Main, Ord. 34-1995
125 W. Main, Ord. 16-1985
132 W. Main, Ord. 33-1994 & Ord. 56-1976
135 W. Main, Ord. 16-1985
205 W. Main, Ord. 34- 1995
211 W. Main, Ord. 16-1985
300 W. Main, Ord. 21-1988
320 W. Main (Smith-Elisha House) (National Register), Ord. 56-1988
328 W. Main, Ord. 57-1981
332 W. Main, Ord. 4-1982
333 W. Main, Ord. 5-1987
400 W. Main, Ord. 16-1985
430 W. Main, Ord. 49-1989
435 W. Main, Ord. 36- 2006
500 W. Main, Ord. 57-1981
501 W. Main
518 W. Main, Ord. 34- 1995
604 W. Main, Ord. 34- 1995
611 W. Main, Ord. 34- 1995
612 W. Main, Ord. 16-1985
616 W. Main, Ord. 10-1996
627 W. Main, Ord. 57-1979
630 W. Main, Ord. 9-2017
633 W. Main, Ord. 57-1979 & Ord. 4 - 1995
701 W. Main, Ord. 34- 1995
705 W. Main, Ord. 34- 1995
706 W. Main, Ord. 56-1989
709 W. Main, Ord. 59-1994 & Ord. 34- 1995
734 W. Main,Ord. 5-1987
101 S. Monarch, Ord. 4 - 1995
Paepcke Park G az ebo, Ord. 57-1981
Appendix S: City of Aspen Historic Inventory
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 243CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS242
6
123 E. Hallam, Ord. 4-1985
127 E. Hallam, Ord. 78-1989
131 E. Hallam, Ord. 77-1981
208 E. Hallam, Ord. 34- 1992
216 E. Hallam, Ord. 34- 1992
211 E. Hallam, Ord. 14-2015
223 E. Hallam, Ord. 4 - 1995
232 E. Hallam, Ord. 4-1982
100 W. Hallam, Ord. 4-1982
215 W. Hallam, Ord. 62-1987
229 W. Hallam, Ord. 34 - 1992
233 W. Hallam, Ord. 34 - 1992
304 W. Hallam, Ord. 36 - 2002
320 W. Hallam, Ord. 4-1982
323 W. Hallam, Ord. 34 - 1992
334 W. Hallam, Ord. 21-1988
403 W. Hallam, Ord. 34 - 1992
417/421 W. Hallam, Ord. 27- 2014
504 W. Hallam, Ord. 4 - 1995
525 W. Hallam, Ord. 46-1995
530 W. Hallam, Ord. 7-1982
533 W. Hallam, Ord. 34 - 1992
610 W. Hallam, Ord. 58-1994
620 W. Hallam, Ord. 11-1991
718 W. Hallam, Unit 1, Ord. 34 - 1992
834 W. Hallam, Ord. 37-1994
918 W.Hallam- new house on a lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split
920 W. Hallam, Ord. 23- 1998
922 W. Hallam- new house on a lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split
113 E. Hopkins, Ord. 77-1981
208 E. Hopkins, Ord. 7-1982
214 E. Hopkins, Ord. 34 - 1992
623 E. Hopkins/625 E. Hopkins, Ord. 34 - 1992
635 E. Hopkins, Ord. 34 – 1992 (aka 205 S. Spring Street)
811 E. Hopkins, Ord. 34 - 1992
819 E. Hopkins, Ord. 34 - 1992
1008 E. Hopkins, Ord.18- 1997
134 W. Hopkins, Ord. 21-1988
134 ½ W. Hopkins, Ord. 21 -1988
135 W. Hopkins, Ord. 34 - 1992
200 W. Hopkins, Ord. 34 - 1992
205 W. Hopkins, Ord. 34 – 1992
211 W. Hopkins, Ord. 22 - 2020
212 W. Hopkins, Ord. 26-1988
222 W. Hopkins, Ord. 77-1981
325 W. Hopkins, Ord. 34 - 1992
500 W. Hopkins, Ord. 21-2007
5
1020 E. Cooper, Ord. 34 – 1992
1101 E. Cooper, Ord. 9- 2017
827 D ean, Ord. 17 - 2007
1004 E. D urant # 1, Ord. 32-1989
505 N. Eighth, Ord. 4-1982
121 N. F if th/aka 605 W. Bleeker, Ord. 77-1981
421 N. F if th, Ord. 4- 1995
505 N. F if th, Ord. 5-2001, lot created through Historic Landmark Lot Split
124 W. Hallam, Ord. 33 – 1999 (aka 308 N. F irst Street)
414 N. F irst, Ord. 57-1981
311 S. F irst, Ord. 34 - 1992
317/319 N. F ourth, units A and B, Ord. 77-1981
120 W. F rancis, Ord. 41-1995
123 W. F rancis, Ord. 41-1995/ Ord. 34 - 1992
129 W. F rancis, new house on lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split
126 W. F rancis, Ord. 34-1992
135 W. F rancis Ord. 77 -1981
201 W. F rancis (Bowles-Cooley House) (National Register), Ord. 7-1982
202 W. F rancis, Ord. 34 - 1992
234 W. F rancis (D avis Waite House) (National Register), Ord. 7-1982
420 W. F rancis, Ord. 5-1987
432 W. F rancis (Hallet House) (National Register), Ord. 77-1981
500 W. F rancis, Ord. 4-1982
523 W. F rancis, Ord. 34 - 1992
529 W. F rancis, new lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split
533 W. F rancis
600/612 W. F rancis, Ord. 20- 2008
624 W. F rancis, Ord. 40-2013
626 W. F rancis, Ord. 2-2016
700 W. F rancis, Ord. 10-1992
712 W. F rancis,Ord. 34 - 1992
716 W. F rancis, Ord. 11-1992
215 N. G armisch, Ord. 9- 2017
860 G ibson, Ord. 4 -1995
931 G ibson, Ord. 22-2018 (previously located at 333 Park, Ord. 4 -1995)
980 G ibson , Ord. 34 - 1992
990 G ibson, Ord. 34 - 1992
311 G illespie/710 N. Third, Ord. 7-1982
314 G illespie, Ord. 4 - 1995
330 G illespie, Ord. 4 - 1995
405 G illespie/707 N. Third, Ord. 34 - 1992
507 G illespie- new lot created by Historic Landmark Lot Split
515 G illespie, Ord. 20-2001
G lory Hole Park, Ord. 34 - 1992
101 E. Hallam, Ord. 16-2001/ Ord. 34 - 1992
105 E. Hallam, Ord.4 – 1995
110 E. Hallam, Ord. 11- 2017
Appendix S: City of Aspen Historic Inventory
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 245CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS244
8
401 Park, Ord. 4 -1995
1080 Power Plant (City Shop), Ord. 21-1992
101 Puppy Smith, Ord. 4 - 1995
17 Queen Street, Ord. 17 – 1990 and Ord. 1 – 1997
120 Red Mountain Road, Ord. 18-2014
541/541 ½ Race Street/A lley
Red Butte Cemetery, Ord. 5 – 1996
1291 Riverside D rive, Ord. 3 -2004, new lot created by Historic Landmark Lot Split
1295 Riverside D rive, Ord. 3 -2004
423 N. Second , Ord. 77-1981
426 N. Second/229 W. Smuggler, Ord. 40 - 1999
525 N. Second (Shilling-Lamb House) (National Register), Ord. 77-1981
Sheeley Bridge (National Register), Ord. 34 - 1992
117 N. Sixth, Ord. 48- 1998
106 N. Seventh Street- new house on Landmark property
28 Smuggler G rove Road, Ord. 25 - 2008
229 W. Smuggler/426 N. 2nd, Ord. 40-1999
400 W. Smuggler, Ord.77-1981
406 W. Smuggler, Ord.49-1989
434 W. Smuggler, Ord. 4- 1995
513 W. Smuggler - new house on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split,
Ord. 77-1981
523 W. Smuggler, Ord. 77 - 1981
609 W. Smuggler, Ord. 34 - 1992
610 W. Smuggler, Ord.77-1981 & Ord. 5-2001
629 W. Smuggler, Ord.4 - 1995
715 W. Smuggler, Ord.77-1981
205 S. Spring Street, Ord. 34 – 1992 (aka 635 E. Hopkins)
470 N. Spring, Ord. 34 - 1992
514 N. Third, Ord. 32-1989
610 N. Third, Ord. 4-1982
620 N. Third, Ord. 34 - 1992
640 N. Third, Ord. 18-2001 & adj acent lot created through Historic Landmark Lot Split
701 N. Third, Ord. 34 - 1992
710 N. Third, Ord. 7-1982
205 S. Third (Matthew Callahan Log Cabin) (National Register), Ord. 77-1981
Triangle Park, Ord. 4-1982
Ute Cemetery (National Register), Ord. 15- 1973
1280 Ute A venue, Ord. 4-1995
520 Walnut, Ord. 48-1994
557 Walnut, Ord. 4 -1995
1102 Waters A venue, Ord. 23 -2010
2 William’ s Way, Ord.18-1999
7
134 E.Hyman, Ord. 44 -2006
201 E. Hyman , Ord. 7-1982
602 E. Hyman – Ord. 10 - 2013
610 E. Hyman, Ord. 23-2012
630 E. Hyman , Ord. 26- 2009
720 E. Hyman, Ord. 17-2012
920 E. Hyman, Ord. 1- 1999
935 E. Hyman , Ord. 30-1996, Lot 1
990 E.Hyman, Ord. 4 - 1995
214 W. Hyman, Ord. 34 - 1992
216 W.Hyman, Ord. 34 - 1992
312 W. Hyman, Ord. 45 - 2006
107-119 Juan, Ord. 4 - 1995
920 King- new house on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split
930 King, Ord.20-1998
935 King, Ord. 4 - 1995
206 Lake (Newberry House) (National Register), Ord. 57-1981
210 Lake, Ord. 28-1980
212 Lake, Ord. 17-1980
220 Lake, Ord. 10-1981
240 Lake, Ord. 15-1998
301 Lake, Ord. 21-2014
320 Lake, Ord. 77-1981
330 Lake, Ord. 4 - 2000
835 W. Main, Ord. 50-1993
Marolt Barns Site and Lixiviation Plant Ruins (National Register), Ord. 45-1988
Maroon Creek Bridge (National Register), Ord. 4 -1994
920 Matchless (Unit 1), Ord. 34 -1992
930 Matchless (Unit 2), Ord. 34 -1992
950 Matchless, Ord. 28- 1998
The Meadows (Restaurant, Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, racetrack, Bayer gardens),
Ord. 5-1996. Boettcher Building, Ordinance 1- 2020
327 Midland/328 Park, Ord. 15 - 2001
590 N. Mill (Holy Cross Building), Ord. 57-1981
202 N. Monarch, Ord. 34 - 1992
212 N. Monarch, Ord. 57-1981
218 N. Monarch, Ord. 77-1981
114 Neale/17 Queen, Ord. 17-1990
117 Neale, Ord. 2 - 2012
119 Neale, Ord. 2 - 2012
311 North, Ord. 79-1992
401 North, Ord. 4 - 1995
500 North, Ord. 77-1981
Opal Marolt House (40176 Highway 82), Ord. 45 - 1988
308 Park, Ord. 4 - 1995
310 Park, new lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split
328 Park/327 Midland, Ord. 15-2001
Appendix S: City of Aspen Historic Inventory
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 247CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS246468.2ϱΖ14ϵ.83Ζ28
3
.
1
1
Ζ
23
6
.
3
ϵ
Ζ
TITLE PARCEL IIUTE PARK131,873 SY. FT. н/Ͳ
3.027 AC. н/Ͳ
TITLE PARCEL I
13,764 SY. FT. н/Ͳ
0.316 AC. н/Ͳ
LOT 6, HOAG SUBDIVISIONUTE CEMETERY
184,14ϱ SY. FT. н/Ͳ
4.227 AC. н/Ͳ
N0Σ 21Ζ 00ΗE ϵ17.ϱ2Ζ (BASIS OF BEARING)S23
Σ
1ϱ
Ζ
00
ΗE
222
.00
Ζ
S0Σ 00Ζ 00ΗE 268.13ΖNϱ8
Σ
2
8
Ζ
0
0
Η
W
ϱ
1
1
.
7
2
ΖN2ϱΣ 28Ζ 00ΗE 323.34ΖSϱ
0
Σ
3
ϵ
Ζ
1
4
Η
E
ϱ
1
ϵ
.
ϱ
0
Ζ
L1
L2L3L
4
LϱL6L7L8
L
ϵ
L10
2ϵϵ.44ΖS1Σ 06Ζ 43ΗW ϱ41.32ΖROARING FORK RIVERHOUSE LLCPARCEL: 273718100018
UTE P
L
UTE
A
V
E
FOUND NO. ϱ REBAR, NO CAP, 1.ϱΖ BELOW GROUND
FOUND 12Η y ϱΖ SANDSTONE 0.3Ζ ABOVE GROUNDΖyΖ MARKED ON TOP, CORNER ϵ MS3ϵ0ϱ, RIVERSIDE PLACERCORNER 10, TRACT B (41)EAST ASPEN ADDITION
FOUND 3.ϱΗ BRASS CAP ON IRON POST
SE CORNER LOT 13/CORNER ϵ, TRACT B (41) EAST ASPEN ADDITION/NE CORNER LOT 18
1ϵϱ4/1ϵ78, MONUMENT RECORD FILED THIS SURVEY
FOUND NO. ϱ REBAR 1.2ϱΗ WHITE PLASTIC CAPILLEGIBLE, FLUSH WITH ROCKS
FOUND NO. ϱ REBAR NO CAP 0.8Ζ ABOVE GROUND
FOUND NO. 4 REBAR, NO CAP0.3Ζ ABOVE GROUND
FOUND NO. ϱ REBAR YELLOW PLASTIC CAPLS ϵ184 ALPINEBEARS SOUTHWEST ϱ.1Ζ
FOUND NO. ϱ REBAR W/ALUMINUM DISK, LOOSELS 37ϵ72
FOUND NO. ϱ REBAR W/1.2ϱΗ YELLOW PLASTIC CAPLS ϵ184 ALPINE
FOUND NO. 4 REBAR, NO CAP0.7Ζ ABOVE GROUNDBEARS SOUTH 1.3Ζ
FOUND NO. ϱ W/1.2ϱΗ WHITE PLASTIC CAP2376, 0.2Ζ ABOVE GROUND
POINT OF BEGINNING, TITLE PARCEL I
FOUND NO. ϱ REBAR NO CAP IN CONCRETE, FLUSH W/GROUND
FOUND NO. ϱ REBAR W/1.2ϱΗ ORANGE PLASTIC CAPILLEGIBLE, 6Η BELOW GROUND
FOUND NO. ϱ REBAR W/1.2ϱΗ ORANGE PLASTIC CAPILLEGIBLE, 6Η BELOW GROUND
FOUND NO. ϱ REBAR W/RED 1.2ϱΗ PLASTIC CAPL.S. ϵ17ϱ FLUSH IN CONCRETE
FOUND NO. ϱ REBAR W/RED 1.2ϱΗ PLASTIC CAP1Η BELOW GROUND ALONG ASPHALT ROADWAY
FOUND NO. ϱ REBAR W/RED 1.2ϱΗ PLASTIC CAPSGM L.S. 1ϱ710, 2Η ABOVE GROUND
FOUND NO. ϱ REBAR, NO CAP IN CONCRETE
FOUND NO. ϱ REBAR NO
CAP, FLUSH W/GROUND
FOUND 3.ϱΗ BRASS CAP ON IRON POSTCORNER NO. 4 MS63111ϵ78, MONUMENT RECORD FILED THIS SURVEY
ROARING FORK RIVER
DIVERSION STRUCTURE
SET 3ϱΖ WITNESS CORNER
NO. ϱ REBAR W/ORANGE 1.2ϱΗ PLASTIC CAPL.S. 28643, 2Η ABOVE GROUND
SET NO. ϱ REBAR W/ORANGE 1.2ϱΗ PLASTIC CAPL.S. 28643, 4Η ABOVE GROUND
SET ϱΖ WITNESS CORNER
NO. ϱ REBAR W/ORANGE 1.2ϱΗ PLASTIC CAPL.S. 28643, 1Η ABOVE GROUND
FOUND 43Ζ WITNESS CORNER
NO. ϱ REBAR W/ORANGE 1.2ϱΗ PLASTIC CAPL.S. 28643, 1Η ABOVE GROUND
SET 48.ϱΖ WITNESS CORNER
NO. ϱ REBAR W/ORANGE 1.2ϱΗ PLASTIC CAPL.S. 28643, 1Η ABOVE GROUND
WOOD FENCE
CORNER NO. 8 OF
TRACT B (41), NOTFOUND, SEE BOUNDARYNOTE NO. 1
CORNER NO. 11 OF
TRACT B (41), NOTFOUND, SEE BOUNDARYNOTE NO. 2
WHEELER DITCH
LINE 8Ͳϵ OF TRACT B (41)EAST ASPEN ADD.
LINE 10Ͳ11 OF TRACT B (41) EAST ASPEN ADD.LINE 8Ͳϵ OF RIVERSIDE PLACER
TRACT B (41), EAST ASPEN ADD.
GOVT. LOT 18
LOT 3UTE PARKPUBLIC ROAD/HIGHWAY EASEMENT
TO CITY OF ASPEN (WIDTH VARIES)
REC. NO. 382323
U.S.F.S. PROPERTY
U.S.F.S.
LOT ϱHOAG
LOT 4HOAG
LOT 2HOAG
LOT 2TEN TEN UTE
(UTE PLACE)
LOT 3TEN TEN UTE
(UTE PLACE)
LOT 4TEN TEN UTE
(UTE PLACE)LOT 7TEN TEN UTE
(UTE PLACE)
LOT 16TEN TEN UTE
(UTE PLACE)
LOT 1ϱTEN TEN UTE
(UTE PLACE)
LOT 1
4TEN T
E
N
U
T
E
(UTE
P
L
A
C
E
)
LOT 13TEN TEN UTE
(UTE PLACE)
LOT 12TEN TEN UTE
(UTE PLACE)
LOT 11TEN TEN UTE
(UTE PLACE)
LOT 10TEN TEN UTE
(UTE PLACE)
LOT ϵTEN TEN UTE(UTE PLACE)
LOT
1
0
CALD
E
R
W
O
O
D
LOT 1GORDON
LOT ϵ
GORDON/CALLAHAN
POWDER HOUSECONDOMINIUM
SEE BOUNDARYNOTE NO. 4
SEE BOUNDARYNOTE NO. ϱ
DITCH APPEARS TO GO UNDERGROUND AT THIS LOCATION
NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION
BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST
DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN
THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF
CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.33118.01 3/7/2024 G:\2023\33118 UTE PARK AND UTE CEMETERY\SURVEY\SURVEY DWGS\SURVEY PLOTS\33118_01 ISP UTE PARK UTE CEMETERY.DWG
TITLE PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS
EDITS TO DESCRIPTION IN BRACKETS
PARCEL I:
(TRIANGLE PARCEL)A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PART OF LOTS 6 AND 7, SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OFTHE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. SAID PARCEL IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:BEGINNING AT A POINT WHENCE CORNER ϵ OF TRACT 41, EAST ASPEN ADDITION BEARS S 00 DEG 21Ζ W,
2ϵϵ.ϱ0 FEET 2ϵϵ.44 FEET͖ THENCE N 0Σ 21Ζ E, 1ϱ0.00 FEET 14ϵ.83 FEET͖ THENCE WEST 183.86 FEETN 8ϵΣ ϱϵΖ 10Η W, 183.73 FEET͖ THENCE S ϱ0Σ 3ϵΖ E, 236.ϱ7 FEET S ϱ0Σ 3ϵΖ 14Η E, 236.3ϵ FEET TO THEPOINT OF BEGINNING.COUNTY OF PITKIN,STATE OF COLORADO.
PARCEL II:(UTE PARK)
A TRACT OF LAND BEING A PART OF TRACT B (41) ASPEN TOWNSITE ADDITION LOCATED IN SECTION 18,TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT CORNER NO. ϵ OF TRACT B (41), A 1ϵϱ4 BRASS CAP, THENCE N 00Σ 21Ζ E ϵ17.ϱ2 FEET ALONG8Ͳϵ TRACT B (41) TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF CALDERWOOD SUBDIVISION ASMONUMENTED͖ THENCE S 61Σ 27Ζ E 83.7ϵ FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF CALDERWOOD SUBDIVISIONTO THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER͖THENCE S 1ϱΣ 3ϱΖ W 14ϵ.64 FEET ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER͖ THENCE S 23Σ 1ϱΖE 222.00 FEET ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER͖ THENCE S 01Σ 40Ζ W 1ϱ6.00 FEETALONG THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER͖ THENCE S 36Σ 3ϱΖ E 13ϱ.00 FEET ALONG THE
CENTERLINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER TO THE INTERSECTION WITH LINE 11Ͳ10 OF TRACT B (41)͖
THENCE SOUTH 268.13 FEET ALONG LINE 11Ͳ10 OF TRACT B (41) TO CORNER 10 OF TRACT B (41) ͖ THENCE
S 38Σ 10Ζ W 1ϱ8.12 FEET͖ THENCE N 60Σ 24Ζ W 12ϱ.00 FEET 122.0ϵ FEET TO THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF
GOVERNMENT LOT 18͖ THENCE N 03Σ 21Ζ E 6ϱ.80 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY N 01Σ 07Ζ 10Η E67.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
AND
LOT 6,ലHOAG SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED NOVEMBER ϱ, 1ϵ71 IN PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE218.ല
COUNTY OF PITKINSTATE OF COLORADO
SURVEY NOTES
1. DATE OF SURVEY: OCTOBER 18 AND 1ϵ, 2023͖ :ANUARY 22 AND 2ϵ, 2024 AND FEBRUARY 1, 23AND 26, 2024.
2. DATE OF PREPARATION: OCTOBER Ͳ DECEMBER, 2023 AND :ANUARY Ͳ FEBRUARY, 2024.
3. BASIS OF BEARING: A BEARING OF N0Σ21Ζ02ΗE ALONG LINE ϵ Ͳ 8 OF THE ASPEN TOWNSITEADDITION TRACT B, BETWEEN THE FOUND B.L.M BRASS CAP MONUMENTING CORNER NO. ϵ ANDA FOUND NO. ϱ REBAR WITH A PLASTIC CAP, L.S. 2376, BEING A POINT ON SAID LINE.
4. BASIS OF SURVEY: THE DOCUMENTS LISTED IN THE SOURCE DOCUMENTS AND THE FOUNDSURVEY MONUMENTS AS SHOWN.
ϱ. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC (SE) TODETERMINE OWNERSHIP OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD. FOR ALL INFORMATION REGARDING
EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND/OR TITLE OF RECORD, SE RELIED UPON THE ABOVE SAIDDOCUMENTS AND THE TITLE COMMITMENTS PREPARED BY LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY,ORDER NO. Y62016432Ͳ2 FOR PARCELS I AND II͖ AND ORDER NO. Y62016431 BOTH WITH ANEFFECTIVE DATE OF AUGUST 18, 2023.
6. THE LINEAR UNIT USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS PLAT IS THE U.S. SURVEY FOOT AS DEFINEDBY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS ANDTECHNOLOGY.
7. BASIS OF ELEVATION: THE TOPOGRAPHY SHOWN ON SHEET 2 IS DERIVED FROM 2016 PITKINCOUNTY LIDAR AERIAL TOPOGRAPHY USING THE NAVD88 DATUM. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS
TWO FEET (2Ζ). THE 2016 COUNTY LIDAR CONTOURS HAVE BEEN GEOͲREFERENCED TO THESUB:ECT PROPERTIESΖ GROUND POSITION.
8. THE 2016 COUNTY AERIAL IMAGE HAVE BEEEN GEOͲREFERENCED TO THE SUB:ECT PROPERTIESΖGROUND POSITION. THE TRAILS, RIVER, DITCH AND DIVERSION STRUCTURE ARE SHOWN BASEDON SAID IMAGERY.
ϵ. THE LIMITS OF PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY IDENTIFIED ALONG THE ROARING FORKRIVER ARE RIPARIAN IN NATURE AND SUB:ECT TO RELICTION AND ACCRETION BY THE EBB ANDFLOW OF SAID RIVER. THE EDGE OF SAID RIVER, AS SHOWN HEREON, IS BASED ONGEOͲREFERENCED DATA PROVIDED BY PITKIN COUNTY.
UTE PARK UTE CEMETERY
SITUATED IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6th P.M.,CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
SHEET 1 OF 3
1 inch = ft.( IN U.S. SURVEY FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
0100 100 200
100
400ϱ0
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1Η = 2000Ζ
SOPRIS ENGINEERING LLC
502 MAIN STREET · SUITE A3 · CARBONDALE CO 81623
(970) 704 0311 · soprisengineering.com
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1Η = 2000Ζ
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT
I, MARK S. BECKLER, HEREBY CERTIFY TO CITY OF ASPEN, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Θ LAND TITLE GUARANTEE
COMPANY, THAT THIS IS AN ͞IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT͟ AS DEFINED BY C.R.S. Α 38Ͳϱ1Ͳ102(ϵ), AND THAT ITIS A MONUMENTED LAND SURVEY SHOWING THE CURRENT LOCATION OF ALL STRUCTURES, WATER COURSES,
WATER FEATURES AND/OR BODIES OF WATER , ROADS, VISIBLE UTILITIES, FENCES, OR WALLS SITUATED ONTHE DESCRIBED PARCEL AND WITHIN FIVE FEET OF ALL BOUNDARIES OF SUCH PARCEL, ANY CONFLICTINGBOUNDARY EVIDENCE OR VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS, AND ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY OF A PUBLICOR PRIVATE NATURE THAT ARE VISIBLE, OR APPARENT, OR OF RECORD AND UNDERGROUND UTILITIESDESCRIBED IN LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANYΖS TITLE INSURANCE FILE NOS. Y62016431 AND Y62016432Ͳ2,OR OTHER SOURCES AS SPECIFIED ON THE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT.
________________________________MARK S. BECKLER L.S. #28643
FOUND B.L.M. BRASS CAPCORNER NO. 1 MS3ϵ0ϱ1ϵϱ4
SITE
LinĞ TĂďůĞ
LinĞ #
L1
L2
L3
L4
Lϱ
L6
DiƌĞctiŽn
S61Σ 27Ζ 00ΗE
S1ϱΣ 3ϱΖ 00ΗW
S1Σ 40Ζ 00ΗW
S36Σ 3ϱΖ 00ΗE
S38Σ 10Ζ 00ΗW
N60Σ 24Ζ 00ΗW
LĞnŐth
83.7ϵΖ
14ϵ.64Ζ
1ϱ6.00Ζ
13ϱ.00Ζ
1ϱ8.12Ζ
122.0ϵΖ
L7
L8
Lϵ
L10
N1Σ 07Ζ 10ΗE
Nϵ0Σ 00Ζ 00ΗE
N27Σ 17Ζ ϱ7ΗW
N8ϵΣ ϱϵΖ 10ΗW
67.14Ζ
67.0ϱΖ
77.ϵ3Ζ
183.73Ζ
CLERK Θ RECORDERΖS CERTIFICATE FOR INFORMATIONAL LAND SURVEY PLATS
DEPOSITED THIS ____ DAY OF _________________________, 2024, AT __________ M., IN THE PITKIN COUNTYINDEy FOR INFORMATIONAL LAND SURVEY PLATS UNDER RECEPTION NUMBER _________________________.
DATE: __________________________________________FILING INFORMATION: SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST, THE 6TH P.M.
MONUMENT LEGEND
ALIYUOT MONUMENTS/M.S. CORNER
INDICATES SET MONUMENTͲL.S. 28643
INDICATES FOUND MONUMENT
SOURCE DOCUMENTS
·PLAT Ͳ HOAG SUBDIVISION (11/0ϱ/1ϵ71, PLAT BOOK 4 PAGE 218, REC. NO. 1483ϱ8)
·PLAT Ͳ UTE CHILDRENSΖ PARK ANNEyATION PLAT (12/23/1ϵ81, PLAT BOOK 12 PAGE 4ϵ, REC. NO.237ϵ3ϵ)
·PLAT Ͳ TEN TEN UTE SUBDIVISION (6/1ϵ/1ϵ87, PLAT BOOK 1ϵ PAGE 80, REC. NO. 2ϵ0283)
·PLAT Ͳ FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UTE PARK SUBDIVISION (10/24/1ϵϵϱ, PLAT BOOK 38 PAGE 3ϵ,REC. NO. 386670)
·SURVEY Ͳ UTE CEMETERY TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY (10/18/1ϵϵϵ, SURVEY BOOK ϱ1 PAGE 61, REC.NO. 436712)
·SURVEY Ͳ THE PROPERTY SURVEY OF UTE PARK PREPARED BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS (REVISEDDATE OF 2/11/1ϵ71, UNRECORDED, PROVIDED BY CLIENT)
·PLAT Ͳ CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION AND P.U.D. AMENDMENT (11/1/1ϵϵ6, PLAT BOOK 40 PAGE 81,RECEPTION NO. 3ϵ8667)
·PLAT Ͳ CALDERWOOD SUBDIVISION (12/2ϵ/1ϵ61, PLAT BOOK 2A PAGE 264, REC. NO.112674)
·PLAT Ͳ GORDON/CALLAHAN RESUBDIVISION ( 1/14/1ϵϵ1, PLAT BOOK 2ϱ PAGE 7ϱ, RECEPTION NO.32ϵ33ϵ)
·PLAT Ͳ 1ST AMENDED FINAL SPA DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF POWDER HOUSE CONDOMINIUMS(8/23/1ϵϵ4, PLAT BOOK 3ϱ PAGE 41, RECEPTION NO. 373426)
·CONDOMINIUM MAP Ͳ POWDER HOUSE CONDOMINIUMS (12/14/1ϵϵ3/, PLAT BOOK 33 PAGE 40,REC. NO. 364ϱ02)
·MAP Ͳ DEPENDENT RESURVEY AND SURVEY OF TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST, OF THESIyTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COLORADO (2/14/1ϵ80, AVAILABLE FROM BUREAU OF LANDMANAGEMENT)
·DEED Ͳ FROM BENEDICT TO THE CITY OF ASPEN (2/24/1ϵ70 BOOK 246 PAGE ϵ61, RECEPTION NO.13ϵ424)
·CORRECTION DEED Ͳ FROM BENEDICT TO THE CITY OF ASPEN (ϱ/3/1ϵ71 BOOK 2ϱϱ PAGE 1ϵ,RECEPTION NO. 14ϱ448)
·DEED Ͳ FROM BENEDICT TO THE CITY OF ASPEN (1/6/1ϵ72 BOOK 262 PAGE ϱ6ϵ, RECEPTION NO.14ϵ3ϵ3)
·DEED Ͳ FROM BENEDICT TO THE CITY OF ASPEN (1/11/1ϵ72 BOOK 260 PAGE 632, RECEPTION NO.14ϵ484)
·PATENT Ͳ PATENT NO. 2218ϵϵ HELLEN C. BIRD (12/14/1ϵ11 BOOK ϱϱ PAGE 1ϵ6, RECEPTION NO.7ϱ121)
ALL OF THE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO RECORDSͲUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
BOUNDARY NOTES
1. THIS SURVEY MADE AN ATTEMPT TO LOCATE CORNER NO. 8 OF TRACT B (41), BUT THISMONUMENT WOULD BE CURRENTLY LOCATED WITHIN THE ROARING FORK RIVER. FOUNDMONUMENTS LOCATED ALONG THIS LINE WERE UTILIED AS THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE FORSAID CORNER NO. 8 POSITION.
2. THIS SURVEY MADE AN ATTEMPT TO LOCATE CORNER NO. 11 OF TRACT B (41), BUT THISMONUMENT WOULD BE CURRENTLY LOCATED WITHIN A PRIVATELY LANDSCAPED AREA. FOUNDMONUMENTS LOCATED ALONG THIS LINE WERE UTILIED AS THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE FORSAID CORNER NO. 11 POSITION.
3. THE BOUNDARY OF HOAG SUBDIVISION WAS PLACED ALONG THE FOUND ORIGINAL
MONUMENTS ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF UTE AVENUE. TEN TEN UTE SUBDIVISION (UTE
PLACE) WAS THEN RECTIFIED TO HOAG SUBDIVISION.
4. THE DEED RECORDED FEBRURAY 24, 1ϵ70 AS BOOK 246 AT PAGE ϵ61 (REC. NO. 13ϵ424) AND THECORRECTION DEED RECORDED MAY 3, 1ϵ71 AS BOOK 2ϱϱ AT PAGE 1ϵ (REC. NO. 14ϱ448) ARE THEPARENTING DEEDS FOR THE PROPERTY WITHIN GOVERNMENT LOT 18 OF TITLE PARCEL II.
4. THE DEEDS RECORDED :ANUARY 6, 1ϵ72 AS BOOK 260 AT PAGE ϱ6ϵ (REC. NO. 14ϵ3ϵ3) AND
:ANUARY 11, 1ϵ72 AS BOOK 260 AT PAGE 632 (REC. NO. 14ϵ484) ARE THE PARENTING DEEDS FORTITLE PARCEL I.
ϱ. THE PATENT NO. 2218ϵϵ TO HELLEN C. BIRD DATED AUGUST 21, 1ϵ11 IS THE PARENTINGDOCUMENT FOR TITLE PARCEL II
Appendix T: 2024 Survey
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 249CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS248
14Ζ RECREATIONAL TRAIL EASEMENTBOOK 303 PAGE 4ϱ2REC #178013
20Ζ SEWER EASEMENT REC #183ϵ10
20Ζ SEWEREASEMENT NO. 2BOOK 312PAGE 1ϱ8REC #183ϵ10
20Ζ SEWER EASEMENTNO. 1 BOOK 31ϱ PAGE1ϱ8 REC #183ϵ10
TRAIL (TYP)
8Ζ WIDE ASPHALT TRAIL
BRICK WALLAROUND PLOT
WOODPOST RAILWOODPICKET FENCE
WOODPICKET FENCE
WOODPICKETFENCE
METALWIREFENCE
METALPOST RAIL
WOODPICKET FENCE
WOODPICKETFENCE
METALFENCE WOODPOST RAIL
IRONFENCE
WOOD PICKET FENCE
ENTRY
GATE
GATE
8010
8020
8030
8012
8014
8016
8018
8022
8024
8026
8028
8032
8000801
0 7ϵϵ27ϵϵ47ϵϵ67ϵϵ88002800480
0
6
8008
8012
801480007ϵϵ27ϵϵ47ϵϵ67ϵϵ8800280048
0
0
6 80087ϵϵ080007ϵ827ϵ847ϵ867ϵ887ϵϵ27ϵϵ47ϵϵ67ϵϵ88002800480067ϵϵ0 7ϵϵ0 7ϵϵ0 7ϵϵ0
80
0
2
800080
0
0
8010
8002
80048006
8008
8012
SPOT ELEV8014.7Ζ
SPOT ELEV8002.3Ζ
SPOT ELEV8004.6Ζ
SPOT ELEV8013.ϱΖ
SPOT ELEV7ϵ8ϵ.8Ζ 10Ζ PIPELINE EASEMENTBOOK ϵ3 PAGE ϱ27 REC #4773ϵ
CENTER PEDESTRIAN TRAIL2ΖͲ3Ζ WIDE EASEMENTREC. NO. 3628ϵ6
PUBLIC ROADWAYEASEMENTREC. NO. 382323WIDTH VARIES 7ϵ727ϵ
7
4
7ϵ7
6
7ϵ
7
0
7ϵ6
8
7ϵ727ϵ7
2
7ϵ747ϵ767ϵ7
4
7ϵ7
6
7ϵ
7
8
7ϵ
8
0
7ϵ
8
2
7ϵ
8
4
7
ϵ
8
6
7
ϵ
8
8
7ϵ
ϵ
07ϵϵ27ϵ707ϵ
6
4
7ϵ667ϵ68ROARING FORK RIVER
WHEELER DITCH
NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION
BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST
DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN
THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF
CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.33118.01 3/7/2024 G:\2023\33118 UTE PARK AND UTE CEMETERY\SURVEY\SURVEY DWGS\SURVEY PLOTS\33118_01 ISP UTE PARK UTE CEMETERY.DWG
UTE PARK UTE CEMETERY
SHEET 2 OF 3
1 inch = ft.( IN U.S. SURVEY FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
060 60 120
60
24030
SOPRIS ENGINEERING LLC
502 MAIN STREET · SUITE A3 · CARBONDALE CO 81623
(970) 704 0311 · soprisengineering.com
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT
GRAVE MARKER TABLE
KEY FIELD DESCRIPTION
1 WILLIAM WARNER METAL
2 WK FISH
3 GEORGE Θ MALISA MORGAN
4 W: MORGAN
ϱ FANNIE HIATT
6 BLANK
7 :OHN ADAIR
8 ANNA :ORDAN
ϵ WM :ORDAN
10 WILLIAM :ORDAN D 1ϵ08
11 MARY :ORDAN
12 :OHN :ORDAN
13 LETTIE NEVITT
14 :NO EUSTACE
1ϱ KATIE WALSH MARTIN
16 ROSEAN KRUSE
17 MARY Θ WILLIAM WALSH
18 GUTTRIED KRUSE
1ϵ BLANK
20 ANDREW Θ ANDREW :R ALDRIDGE
21 ELISE CALLICOTTE
22 ALBERS
23 WALTER BURT
24 SAMUEL CHURCHILL
2ϱ GEORGE VOGEL
26 IDA CHATTFIELD
27 :ACYUELINE PEN
28 :ACYUELINE :AMISON
2ϵ R.:.
30 ARTHUR GLASSER
31 GRAVE UNMARKED
32 FREDDY OVERN
33 GRAVE STONE BORDER UNMARKED
34 MIGNON SHEDAKER
3ϱ HUGH MITCHELL
36 :OHN GIBSON
37 :OHN THOMAS
38 THOMAS SIMPSON
3ϵ DANIEL BURAK
40 CM EVERETT
41 : RODDY
42 SE RATHBURN
43 BROKEN
44 HK MATTISON
4ϱ GD WEST
46 :G WOODRUFF
47 ALEy ADAIR
48 :AMES DUNN
4ϵ BROKEN
ϱ0 FA OSTERHOUT
ϱ1 :NO ROSE
ϱ2 AARON DAVIS
ϱ3 GEO MARSHALL
ϱ4 :B MEGINITY
ϱϱ :W TANFIELD
ϱ6 MCLANE STARNE
ϱ7 :OS SHAW
ϱ8 :NO MCFADDEN
ϱϵ FRANK OΖKANE
60 THOS MOONEY
61 W STIGA
62 SS HADLEY
63 CHAS VANDERGRIFF
64 BROKEN
6ϱ ABRAHAM ALLEN
66 ROBΖ FITGERALD
67 MH WIGGINS
68 BLANK
6ϵ :A MILLS
70 GF BUARD
71 IM ELLIOT
72 :B COOK
73 :NO SLOAN
74 :OHN Θ :AMES EARLY
GRAVE IDENTIFIER
SEWER MANHOLE
EyISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND
MINOR CONTOUR
MA:OR CONTOUR
TRAIL
SITUATED IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6th P.M.,CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
FIRE HYDRANT
WATER VALVE
ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
ELECTRIC METER
CATV PEDESTAL
________________________________
MARK S. BECKLER L.S. #28643
Appendix T: 2024 Survey
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 251CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS250
NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION
BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST
DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN
THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF
CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.33118.01 3/7/2024 G:\2023\33118 UTE PARK AND UTE CEMETERY\SURVEY\SURVEY DWGS\SURVEY PLOTS\33118_01 ISP UTE PARK UTE CEMETERY.DWG
UTE PARK UTE CEMETERY
SHEET 3 OF 3
1 inch = ft.( IN U.S. SURVEY FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
060 60 120
60
24030
SOPRIS ENGINEERING LLC
502 MAIN STREET · SUITE A3 · CARBONDALE CO 81623
(970) 704 0311 · soprisengineering.com
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT
SITUATED IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6th P.M.,CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
________________________________
MARK S. BECKLER L.S. #28643
Appendix T: 2024 Survey
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 253CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS252
Natural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space Page i
NATURAL RESOURCE BASELINE REPORT
2024 GROWING SEASON
Ute Cemetery Open Space
City of Aspen,Pitkin County,Colorado
revision date:March 28,2025
Summary
This report provides a comprehensive look at the vegetation and the wildlife occurring at Ute Cemetery
Open Space. The report includes a detailed vegetation type map and descriptions of each vegetation
community, presents a noxious weed assessment, and includes a complete vascular plant species list.
In addition, the report includes information on wildlife occurrences based on direct and indirect
observation, habitat types present, as well as potential use of Ute Cemetery by wildlife species with
special conservation or legal status.
The surveys conducted in 2024 revealed that although the property is small, it does provide some
habitat for wildlife. The most important conservation value provided by Ute Cemetery is a connection
between important habitat on Richmond Ridge to the south and the Roaring Fork River. The adjacency
of the remnant native woodlands and shrublands with the Roaring Fork riparian area supports
songbirds, small mammals, and meso-carnivores, as well as seasonal use by mule deer (Odocoileus
hemionus) and Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus canadensis).The recommendations provided in this report
include protecting, preserving and enhancing the high-quality riparian corridor along the Roaring Fork
River, creating and implementing a noxious weed control management plan, eliminating social trails,
enhancing pollinator habitat, and preserving and protecting plants of cultural significance. In addition
to preserving the connection between Richmond Ridge and the Roaring Fork River, protection and
restoration of this small area of native habitat types can provide a refuge for wildlife in an area where
the effectiveness of most of the native habitat has been diminished by development.
NATURAL RESOURCE
BASELINE REPORT
2024 GROWING SEASON
March 2024 Ute Cemetery Open Space
City of Aspen,Pitkin County,Colorado
Prepared by:
Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC
0100 Elk Run Drive, Suite 128
Basalt, CO 81621
Peak Ecological Services, LLC
301 Boulder Canyon Drive
PO Box 827
Nederland, Colorado 80466
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 255CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS254
Natural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space Page iii
L i s t o f T a b l e s
Table 1. Plant Communities of Ute Cemetery Open Space .........................................................................2
Table 2. List of Noxious Weeds. Ute Cemetery Open Space......................................................................8
Table 3. Birds of Conservation Concern Known or With the Potential to Occur at Ute Cemetery .........11
Table 4. Herpetofauna Known or With the Potential to Occur at Ute Cemetery Open Space ................12
L i s t o f F i g u r e s
Figure 1. Project Location Map. USGS Aspen 7.5’ Quad..............................................................................1
Figure 2. Geology Map of Ute Cemetery Open Space................................................................................2
Figure 3. Vegetation Type Map ....................................................................................................................4
Figure 4. CNHP Potential Conservation Area Map......................................................................................8
L i s t o f P h o t o s
Photo 1. Native Narrowleaf Cottonwood – Blue Spruce Riparian Forest along the Roaring Fork River...3
Photo 2. Woody riparian vegetation along the irrigation ditch..................................................................5
Photo 3. Aspen forest overview..................................................................................................................5
Photo 4. Mountain shrubland overview......................................................................................................5
Photo 5. Play structure at Ute Park.............................................................................................................6
Photo 6. Public art installation.....................................................................................................................6
Photo 7. Area for additional woody riparian plantings...............................................................................7
Photo 8. Social trail recommended for restoration....................................................................................7
Photo 9. Pale yellow iris. A plant of historical significance.......................................................................10
Natural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space Page ii
T A b l e o f C o n t e n t s
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................1
2.0 BACKGROUND.........................................................................................................................................1
3.0 SOILS & GEOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................1
4.0 VEGETATION...........................................................................................................................................2
4.1 Vegetation Communities .....................................................................................................................2
4.1.1 Forests & Woodlands ......................................................................................................................3
4.1.2 Mountain Shrubland .......................................................................................................................5
4.1.3 Developed Areas.............................................................................................................................6
4.2 Riparian Habitat Functional Assessment ............................................................................................6
4.2.1 Methods ..........................................................................................................................................6
4.2.2 Results.............................................................................................................................................7
4.3 Rare Plants and Plant Communities ....................................................................................................8
4.4 Noxious Weed Assessment .................................................................................................................8
4.5 Floristic Inventory & Floristic Quality Assessment ..............................................................................9
4.5.1 Survey Methods ..............................................................................................................................9
4.5.2 Results ............................................................................................................................................9
4.6 Pollinator Habitat...............................................................................................................................10
5.0 WILDLIFE ...............................................................................................................................................11
5.1 Methods ..............................................................................................................................................11
5.2 Results .................................................................................................................................................11
5.2.1 Birds ................................................................................................................................................11
5.2.2 Mammals .......................................................................................................................................12
5.2.3 Herpetofauna –Amphibians & Reptiles .......................................................................................12
5.3 Rare, Threatened, & Endangered Wildlife Species ............................................................................12
5.4 Discussion and Management Implications ........................................................................................12
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................................................13
6.1 Vegetation Recommendations ..........................................................................................................13
6.2 Wildlife Recommendations ................................................................................................................14
7.0 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................15
APPENDIX A. WEB SOIL SURVEY DATA ................................................................................................A1-A3
APPENDIX B. ROARING FORK STREAM HEALTH ASSESSMENT..........................................................B1-B5
APPENDIX C. VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES LIST..................................................................................... C1-C5
APPENDIX D. USFWS CONSULTATION LETTER ...................................................................................D1-D3
APPENDIX E. WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TO OCCUR AT UTE CEMETERY OS ........E1-E15
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 257CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS256
Natural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space Page 2
According to the 7.5’ Series Aspen Geology Quad
(Bryant 1971), the geology of Ute Cemetery is
mapped as Unit Qmb, which consists of glacial
moraine deposits ranging from silt to boulders. See
Figure 2.
4 .0 V e g e t a t i o n
The current vegetation conditions in the project
area reflect a rich cultural history and its use as a
pioneer cemetery dating back to the late 19th
century. During that time much of the vegetation
surrounding the grave sites was cleared and then
naturally grew back during the latter half of the 20th
century. Other areas of vegetation, such as along
the riparian corridor and on rocky knolls, were likely
untouched.
4 .1 V e g e t a t i o n C o m m u n i t i e s
The vegetation of Ute Cemetery was documented
by qualitative observations by Rea Orthner of Peak Ecological Services LLC. Field visits occurred from
mid-June through mid- September 2024. Vegetation types were classified according to the 2022 U.S.
National Vegetation Classification (USNVC), which is the central organizing framework for
documentation, inventory, monitoring, and study of vegetation in the United States. To the extent
possible, the classification was completed to the two most detailed or “lowest” levels of the
classification hierarchy, alliances and associations. Alliances are classified based on diagnostic species
from the dominant growth form and are moderately similar in composition. Associations, which are
more “fine-grained” are based on diagnostic speciesfrom multiple growth forms and are more narrowly
similar. Associations also enable one to track the rarity of plant communities on a larger scale, however
not all associations have been well described for Colorado. Overall, three different alliances and three
associations were documented for Ute Cemetery Open Space. The following text describes these
vegetation communities based on field reconnaissance conducted in 2024. Table 1 provides a summary
and Figure 3 includes a vegetation type map.
TABLE 1.PLANT COMMUNITIES OF UTE CEMETERY OPEN SPACE
VEGETATION ALLIANCE AND CODE VEGETATION
ASSOCIATION AND CODE
CNHP
RANKING
AREA
(ACRES)
PERCENT OF
TOTAL
Forest/Woodland
Narrowleaf Cottonwood Riparian
Forest Alliance A3759
Narrowleaf Cottonwood -
Blue Spruce / Alder
Riparian Woodland
CEGL000934
G3/S4 0.82 10.8%
Quaking Aspen Rocky Mountain
Forest & Woodland Alliance A2036
Quaking Aspen /
Serviceberry Forest
CEGL000564
G4/S4 4.96 65.0%
Forest/Woodland Total 5.78 75.8%
Figure 2.Geology Map of Ute Cemetery Open Space.
Ute Cemetery
Natural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space Page 1
1 .0 I n t r o d u c t i o n
The City of Aspen Parks and Open Space is currently in the process of preparing a management plan for
Ute Cemetery Open Space to aid in efficient and effective management of the site. This property is
located on Ute Avenue, on the east side of Aspen, Colorado (Figure 1).The site consists of a variety of
narrow walking paths,graves,gravestone markers, small decorative fences, a children’s playground,
and public art. The northern and western edges of the property abut residential subdivisions and the
southern edge borders a pedestrian pathway that parallels Ute Ave. The eastern portion of the project
area incorporates Ute Park. The northern portion of the open space includes the Roaring Fork River, an
irrigation ditch,and a small pedestrian pathway. This site was added to the National Register of Historic
Places in 2002 and includes roughly 175 graves, including about 50 belonging to Civil War veterans. This
report documents the vegetation and wildlife baseline surveys conducted in 2024 in support of the
upcoming management plan.
2 .0 B a c k g r o u n d
Ute Cemetery, originally known as Evergreen Cemetery, was established in 1880 and holds significant
importance in Aspen's early history and development (Sladek 2001). The cemetery was founded in the
early years of Aspen’s mining boom, when the town was growing rapidly due to the silver rush and was
used for burials of Aspen’s early settlers, many of whom were miners and pioneers and is thus a
testament to the numerous working-class people who settled Aspen during its early years.The
cemetery's layout was unplanned, resulting in a rustic and disorganized appearance that persists to this
day. By the 1940’s,the Cemetery’s intensive use
declined and much of the site fell into disrepair
until late in the 20th and early 21st century when
preservation efforts began and the site was listed
on the National Register of Historic Places.
Ongoing maintenance by the City of Aspen
includes periodic noxious weed pulls and minor
vegetation cutting around the grave sites.
3 .0 S o i l s &G e o l o g y
According to the Web Soil Survey (USDA-NRCS
2024), three different soil map units are mapped
for Ute Cemetery.The Urraca, moist-Mergel
complex (Map Units 107and 108)occurs over the
majority of the project area. The Ansel-Anvik
association (Map Unit 9) occurs over less than 1%
of the area, and the Roaring Fork River (Map Unit
120) comprises the rest. Overall, the soils at Ute
Cemetery are deep or very deep (40 inches to
greater than 60 inches to bedrock), well drained,
moderately permeable, formed in glacial
deposits, and occur on gently sloping alluvial fans
and terraces. Soil textures are variable,ranging from clay loam to sand,and are commonly very rocky.
The surface layer is typically dark in color and has high organic matter content. See Appendix A for
detailed soil information.
Figure 1.Project Location Map.USGS Aspen 7.5’Quad.
Ute Cemetery
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 259CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS258
MS
RF
PA
PA
BP
MS
AF
W
PG
Ute Cemetery Boundary
Riparian Forest (RF)
Aspen Forest (AF)
Mountain Shrubland (MS)
Roaring Fork River (W)
Bike Path (BP)
Parking Area (PA)
Playground (PG)
±Legend
Figure 3. Vegetation Type Map
Ute Cemetery Open Space
City of Aspen, Colorado
BACKGROUND: Colorado 2024 Vexcel Imagery
Date: March 2025
1 inch equals 175 feet
Social Trail to Restore
Riparian Restoration
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space Page 4
Natural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space Page 3
TABLE 1.PLANT COMMUNITIES OF UTE CEMETERY OPEN SPACE
VEGETATION ALLIANCE AND CODE VEGETATION
ASSOCIATION AND CODE
CNHP
RANKING
AREA
(ACRES)
PERCENT OF
TOTAL
Shrubland
Mountain Big Sagebrush Mixed
Steppe & Shrubland Alliance (A3208)
Serviceberry –Mountain
Big Sagebrush Shrubland
CEGL002820
GNR /
S4S5
1.42 18.8%
Shrubland Total 1.42 18.8%
Aquatic
River n/a n/a 0.13 1.7%
Aquatic Total 0.13 1.7%
Other
Playground n/a n/a 0.03 0.4%
Bike Path & Parking n/a n/a 0.20 2.7%
Other Total 0.23 3.6%
Grand Total 7.57 100.0%
Note: Associations follow the 2022 USNVC Classification System. Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding.
4 .1 .1 F o r e s t s &W o o d l a n d s
Forests and woodlands comprise approximately 5.78acres (75.8%) of the Ute Cemetery property,
including 0.82 acres of a Narrowleaf Cottonwood –Blue Spruce / Alder Riparian Woodland and 4.92
acres of a Quaking Aspen / Serviceberry
Forest.The riparian forest occurs on the
floodplains and low terraces of the Roaring
Fork River as well as along the adjacent
irrigation ditch. It is a common riparian
woodland in Colorado as well as in Pitkin
County. Stands occur along meandering
streams and rivers in narrow to moderately
wide mountain valleys and deep canyons.
At Ute Cemetery, this riparian woodland
supports a variable overstory of narrowleaf
cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), with a
scattering of blue spruce (Picea pungens).
Common shrubs in the understory include
alder (Alnus incana subsp. tenuifolia),
redosier dogwood (Cornus sericea), several
species of willows (Salix spp.)as well as
snowberry (Symphoricarpos rotundifolius).
In low-lying swales and along the river’s edge, wetlands occur and support species such as bluejoint
reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis), beaked sedge (Carex utriculata), Chamisso sedge (Carex
pachystachya), Bebb’s sedge (Carex bebbi), Kellogg’s sedge (Carex kelloggii), Dudley’s rush (Juncus
dudleyi), and small fruit bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus).Other species include roundleaf wintergreen
Photo 1. Native Narrowleaf Cottonwood –Blue Spruce
Riparian Forest along the Roaring Fork River.
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 261CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS260
Natural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space Page 6
umbellatum), Rocky Mountain penstemon (Penstemon strictus), ballhead sandwort (Eremogone
congesta), showy goldeneye (Heliomeris multiflora), lambstongue groundsel (Senecio integerrimus),
hairy goldenaster (Heterotheca villosa),and mouseear chickweed (Cerastium strictum). Graminoids
include elk sedge (Carex geyeri), junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), and Nelson needlegrass (Eriocoma
nelsonii). Like the other vegetation communities on site, non-native pasture grasses are also present.
The top of the small knoll contains a stand of Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii). This association is ranked
as state apparently secure / secure (S4/S5) but is not ranked at a global level. This association has been
previously documented in the highlands of northwestern Colorado and northeastern and southeastern
Utah. It is also found southwestern Wyoming and in east-central Nevada (USNVC 2022).
4 .1 .3 D e v e l o p e d A r e a s
One small playground with a wood chip covered ground is found in the eastern portion of the project
area. In addition, there is a bike path and parking areas along Ute Avenue. Finally, there is a public art
sculpture present.
4 .2 R i p a r i a n H a b i t a t F u n c t i o n a l A s s e s s m e n t
Riparian habitats—ecosystems found along the edges of rivers, streams, and other water bodies —are
essential for maintaining environmental health. These transitional zones between land and water
support a rich diversity of plant and animal life. They play a key role in improving water quality by filtering
pollutants, stabilizing banks, and preventing erosion. Additionally, riparian areas serve as vital wildlife
corridors, providing habitat for numerous species, while also offering recreational and aesthetic benefits
for people. Protecting and restoring these ecosystems is crucial for conserving biodiversity,
safeguarding water resources, and promoting the well-being of both nature and human communities.
4 .2 .1 M e t h o d s
A rapid qualitative assessment of riparian corridor health was made utilizing the Proper Functioning
Condition (PFC) methodology (UDOI 2020). The PFC assessment is a qualitative method based on
hydrology, vegetation, and soil/landform attributes that provides information on whether a riparian -
wetland area is physically functioning in a manner that allows the habitat to be resilient to change,such
as high flow events The purpose of the field reconnaissance was to evaluate the baseline condition and
the extent of the riparian-wetland habitat and to provide recommendations to further enhance the
Photo 5. Play structure at Ute Park.Photo 6. Public art installation.
Natural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space Page 5
(Pyrola asarifolia), cow parsnip (Heracleum
maximum), starry false Soloman’s seal
(Maianthemum stellatum),and field horsetail
(Equisetum arvense). Non-native species are
also present including reed canarygrass
(Phalaris arundinacea), and redtop (Agrostis
gigantea), which are both naturalized within the
watershed. The association is rated as globally
vulnerable and state apparently secure (G3/S4).
The Quaking Aspen – Serviceberry Forest
occupies 4.96 acres or 65.0% of the project
area. The understory is variable and includes a
fair amount of serviceberry (Amelanchier
alnifolia) along with snowberry, and patches of
common juniper (Juniperus communis subsp.
alpina). Forbs include Richardson geranium
(Geranium richardsonii), showy goldeneye
(Heliomeris multiflora), aspen daisy (Erigeron
speciosus), whiteflower pea (Lathyrus
leucanthus), tall ragwort (Senecio serra), and
American vetch (Vicia americana).Many
portions of the aspen forest at Ute Cemetery
also have a non-native component of pasture
grasses including smooth brome (Bromus
inermis), timothy (Phleum pratense) and
orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata). In the
northwest portion of the parcel, there are
several mature blue spruce and Douglas fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) trees. According to
the USNVC (USNVC 2022), this aspen
association occurs in the Rocky Mountains and is
reported from Colorado to western Montana and
into Ontario, Canada. The association is rated as
globally and state apparently secure (G4/S4).
4 .1 .2 M o u n t a i n S h r u b l a n d
The center of the project area is dominated by a
serviceberry –mountain big sagebrush shrubland.
This shrubland consists of tall shrubs such as
serviceberry and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana
subsp. melanocarpa) and shorter shrubs such as
mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var.
vaseyana) along with rubber rabbitbrush
(Ericameria nauseosus), snowberry
(Symphoricarpos rotundifolius),Oregon grape
(Berberis repens),and bitterbrush (Purshia
tridentata). Numerous native perennial forbs are present including sulphur flower (Eriogonum
Photo 2. Woody riparian vegetation along the irrigation ditch.
Photo 3. Aspen forest overview.
Photo 4. Mountain shrubland overview.
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 263CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS262
Natural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space Page 8
4 .3 R a r e P l a n t s a n d P l a n t C o m m u n i t i e s
No federally listed, Forest Service or BLM Sensitive, or State rare plant species as tracked by the CNHP
were documented during field visits conducted in 2024. However, the CNHP has mapped both mountain
bladder fern (Cystopteris montana), a state critically
imperiled species (S1) and canyon bog orchid
(Platanthera tescamnis, syn. Limnorchis sparsiflora),
a state vulnerable (G3) plant,from the general
vicinity of the property (CNHP 2024).
CNHP mapped Potential Conservation Areas (PCA)
in the vicinity of Ute Cemetery include the Upper
Roaring Fork River PCA to the southeast, the Hunter
Creek PCA to the north, and the Maroon Creek /
Castle Creek PCA to the northwest. None of these
PCAs overlap the project area. A PCA is a designated
geographic area identified as having significant
ecological value due to its biological diversity, rare
species, or high-quality natural communities. PCAs
are established based on rigorous scientific
assessments and prioritize areas that support
species of concern, unique ecosystems, or critical
habitat. See Figure 4.
4 .4 N o x i o u s W e e d A s s e s s m e n t
Nine species of Colorado State listed noxious weeds were identified during the 2024 field visits. See
Table 2. Most of these species are found throughout the cemetery site with toadflax (Linaria vulgaris)
and oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) being present more commonly around the grave sites. These
species are known to have been brought to the United States by early settlers as ornamentals. Other
species such as mullein (Verbascum thapsus) and plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides) are abundant
throughout all the upland vegetation communities. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and bulbous
bluegrass (Poa bulbosa), both annual graminoids, tend to occupy open dry sites. While some noxious
weed management was conducted in 2024 through a City of Aspen volunteer workday, there is no
overall weed management plan in place to the author’s knowledge.
TABLE 2.LIST OF NOXIOUS WEEDS.UTE CEMETERY OPEN SPACE.
Scientific Name Common Name Family Noxious
Weed List
Perennial Forbs
Linaria vulgaris Toadflax, butter-and-eggs Plantaginaceae B
Leucanthemum vulgare Oxeye daisy Asteraceae B
Tanacetum vulgare Common tansy Asteraceae B
Annual /Biennial Forbs
Carduus acanthoides Plumeless thistle Asteraceae B
Cynoglossum officinale Houndstongue Boraginaceae B
Tripleurospermum perforatum (Matricaria)Scentless chamomile Asteraceae B
Figure 4.CNHP Potential Conservation Area Map.
Ute Cemetery
Natural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space Page 7
ecological integrity of the riparian corridor. In addition, one past study was reviewed: Malone and
Emerick’s Catalog of Stream and Riparian Habitat Quality for the Roaring Fork River and Tributaries
(Malone and Emerick 2007).Ute Cemetery Open Space is part of Reach 3 Segment 14, the details of
which are found in Appendix B. This document provides detailed insights into the condition of stream
and riparian habitats in the Roaring Fork Watershed and serves as a valuable resource for understanding
and managing these ecosystems.
4 .2 .2 R e s u l t s
The results of the PFC assessment reveal that the riparian corridor is functional-at-risk. There appears to
be a suitable diversityof plants dominated by natives and most of the site has a good structural diversity
with a multi-layered canopy of trees, shrubs, and forbs. However, there is one large canopy gap that
would benefit from additional woody riparian plantings .In addition, one social trail was noted down a
steep embankment to the river which should be restored.Overall, the riparian vegetation appears to
be free of disease and insect outbreaks with
numerous narrowleaf cottonwood trees
present and a few large blue spruces. The
noxious weeds that are present in the riparian
habitat do not appear over abundant or
problematic. Finally, streambank stability
appears to be adequate, with the exception of
the one social trail.
In the Roaring Fork Stream Health Assessment
(Appendix B), Malone and Emerick (2007)
report that over 30%to 40% of this reach has
been impacted by housing developments in
the surrounding uplands. Notably, houses with
manicured lawns and adjacent roads have
replaced the once-forested habitat. As
snowmelt and precipitation wash through,
runoff from roads and lawns may wash excess
nutrients and pesticides into the stream and adjacent riparian habitat. These changes result in increased,
unfiltered runoff and can cause a higher influx
of nutrients and pollutants into the waterway.
In addition, potential for habitat sustainability
and recovery depends on the presence of a
good distribution of all age classes of native
woody trees and shrubs. Consequently, those
developments that have cleared trees and
shrubs have also degraded habitat
sustainability.Despite these threats, the Ute
Cemetery Open Space still provides an
isolated patch of relatively healthy native
riparian habitat that provides breeding
habitat for songbird and small mammals and
foraging habitat for human-tolerant large
mammals.
Photo 7. Area for additional woody riparian plantings.
Photo 8. Social trail recommended for restoration.
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 265CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS264
Natural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space Page 10
annual/biennial forbs, and two species of annual graminoids. Of the total, 37 or 28% are non-native and
9 species are Colorado State listed noxious weeds.For such a small property, Ute Cemetery supports
as incredible number of plant species.
The results of the FQA calculation indicatethat the entire property had a mean C-value of 3.9.In general,
high-quality natural areas, which are relatively undisturbed typically exhibit Mean C-values greater than
4. While medium-quality areas, or ecosystems experiencing
moderate disturbance or partial restoration efforts often have
Mean C-values ranging from 2 to 4. And low quality habitats with
high disturbance have a Mean C of less than 2. Thus, Ute
Cemetery with a mean C of 3.9 is a moderate to high quality
natural area.
In addition, to the plethora of native plants present at Ute
Cemetery, there is also one plant species of historical
significance.The pale yellow iris (Iris x. flavescens) is an heirloom
cultivar of uncertain origin first introduced in 1813. It is believed
to be a naturally occurring hybrid, and naturalized populations
can be found growing along roadsides and in old residential
properties and cemeteries throughout the United States. The
fragrant blooms are a light lemon-yellow color, and are held
above dense, sword-like foliage on sturdy stalks up to 3' tall
(Missouri Botanic Garden 2024).This plant was observed to be
present around many of the grave sites and was likely
introduced by early pioneers.No historically planted lilac shrubs
were observed at the cemetery, which were previously
reported as being present (Tatanka Historical Associates 2004).
4 .6 P o l l i n a t o r H a b i t a t
The Ute Cemetery Open Space supports a diverse array of native wildflowers creating valuable habitat
for pollinators. These habitats are essential for ecosystem health, as pollinators—including native bees,
butterflies, moths, flies, beetles, bats, and other insects—play a crucial role in plant reproduction.
Through pollination, they help plants produce seeds for dispersal and propagation while maintaining
genetic diversity within plant populations.
However, pollinator populations have been in decline for decades due to multiple factors, including
habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation; a decrease in the quantity and quality of food sources;
reduced availability of mating, nesting, and migration sites; pesticide exposure; and increased threats
from pathogens, pests, and parasites (USDA and USDOI 2015). Given these challenges, managing
landscapes to support pollinators is a critical aspect of conservation.
According to Pollinator-Friendly Best Management Practices for Federal Lands (USDA and USDOI 2015),
effective pollinator management involves maintaining and protecting wildflower-rich foraging habitats,
ensuring the long-term productivity of these resources, and providing essential nesting and
overwintering sites. Strategies include preserving undisturbed open ground and woody debris for native
bee nesting, sustaining host plants for butterflies, and offering refuges for overwintering insects. By
implementing these practices, land managers can help sustain healthy pollinator populations and
promote biodiversity within natural areas.
Photo 9.Pale yellow iris.A plant of
historical significance.
Natural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space Page 9
TABLE 2.LIST OF NOXIOUS WEEDS.UTE CEMETERY OPEN SPACE.
Scientific Name Common Name Family Noxious
Weed List
Verbascum thapsus Mullein Scrophulariaceae C
Annual Graminoids
Bromus tectorum (=Anisantha)Cheatgrass, Downy brome Poaceae C
Poa bulbosa Bulbous bluegrass Poaceae C
Note: See www.colorado.gov/pacific/agconservation/noxious-weed-species for additional details.
4 .5 F l o r i s t i c I n v e n t o r y &F l o r i s t i c Q u a l i t y A s s e s s m e n t
Amidst growing environmental changes and human pressures, the need for floristic data has become
increasingly crucial for understanding, preserving, and managing biodiversity. Beyond conducting
floristic inventories, which is merely a tally of all plants growing in an area, evaluating overall floristic
quality is equally essential. The Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) is a standardized method for
measuring a site's ecological health based on its native plant species. It serves as a valuable tool for
assessing the impact of human disturbances on plant communities and monitoring changes over time.
This information is essential for managing open spaces effectively and gaining a more comprehensive
understanding of biodiversity.
4 .5 .1 S u r v e y M e t h o d s
A comprehensive list of all vascular plant species encountered at Ute Cemetery in the 2024 growing
season was compiled for the project area and is presented in table form with scientific name, common
name, plant family, and origin (native or introduced).See Appendix C. The list uses current taxonomic
nomenclature as found in The Flora of Colorado, 2nd edition (Ackerfield 2022). In addition, photographs
of many of the plant species were uploaded to the iNaturalistdata site which is a citizen science platform
and social network where users can record and share observations of biodiversity. It allows people to
document plant, animal, and fungi species using photos and location data, with identifications aided by
artificial intelligence (AI)and community expertise. iNaturalist is widely used for ecological research,
conservation efforts, and personal nature exploration. See https://www.inaturalist.org.
To document the floristic quality within the project area, a Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) was
conducted (Rocchio 2007). The FQA method is based on the concept of species conservatism, which
measures a species’ sensitivity to disturbance and its fidelity to a specific habitat or environment. This is
quantified using the Coefficient of Conservatism (C-value), an integer ranging from 0 to 10 assigned to
species within a given geographic area.Species with low C-values are highly tolerant of disturbance,
show little habitat fidelity, and can thrive in a wide range of conditions. In contrast, species with high C-
values are highly sensitive to disturbance and are typically found in high-quality natural areas that reflect
pre-settlement conditions. The C-values used in this assessment were sourced from the Colorado
Natural Heritage Program’s (CNHP) Colorado Floristic Quality Assessment Database (CNHP 2020) and
are listed in the Vascular Plant Species List in Appendix C. To calculate the FQA of Ute Cemetery, the C-
values of all species were averaged to give a mean C value.
4 .5 .2 R e s u l t s
A total of 132 vascular plant species were observed at Ute Cemetery Open Space. These include six
species of trees, 24 shrubs/subshrubs, 27 perennial graminoids, 59 perennial forbs, one fern ally, 13
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 267CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS266
Natural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space Page 12
5 .2 .2 M a m m a l s
Thirty-two detections of 9 mammal species were detected at Ute Cemetery Open Space during the
surveys: American beaver, American black bear, American elk, coyote, golden-mantled ground squirrel,
least chipmunk, mule deer, northern pocket gopher, and red squirrel. The property is used by mule deer
and elk throughout the non-winter months including the transition periods during the gradual
movement between winter and summer range. Nine separate occurrences of mule deer and thirteen
occurrences of elk were detected on the property. In contrast to the deer and deer sign, all of the elk
sign was older, from early spring or the previous fall. Additionally, there are 9 bat species that may occur
on the property based upon habitat affinity and geographic distribution (Fitzgerald et al. 1994, Adams
2003, Armstrong 2008, Armstrong et al. 2011).
5 .2 .3 H e r p e t o f a u n a –A m p h i b i a n s &R e p t i l e s
Herpetofauna sampling has not been conducted at Ute Cemetery OS. Only one reptile, western
terrestrial garter snake likely occurs on the property.
TABLE 4.HERPETOFAUNA KNOWN OR WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR AT UTE CEMETERY OPEN SPACE
Common Name Scientific Name Known
or Likely How CNHP /CPW
Status
Amphibians
None
Reptiles
Western terrestrial garter snake Thamnophis elegans Known Observation G5 S5
5 .3 R a r e ,T h r e a t e n e d ,&E n d a n g e r e d S p e c i e s
On March 4, 2025, the property boundary was submitted to USFWS via the IPaC system
(http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/) requesting an official list of threatened, endangered,proposed, and
candidate species that may occur on or within proximity of Ute Cemetery. An official list was received
and is attached as Appendix E.No federally protected species are expected to occur within the property
and no designated critical habitat exists for any listed species within or adjacent to the property. The
official list received from USFWS includes three insect species that should be considered regarding
management of the property. Two of those species, silverspot (Speyeria nokomis nokomis),and
Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee (Bombus suckleyi) do not have appropriate habitat within or adjacent to
the property. Monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) occur within the upper Roaring Fork valley. This
migratory species, however, is dependent on milkweeds (Asclepias spp.) for their caterpillars and no
milkweed stands were found at Ute Cemetery.
Appendix D lists all of the wildlife known or suspected to occur on the property. Of the 83 species listed,
19 are designated by one or more state, federal, or non-governmental conservation organization (i.e.,
CNHP) as a species of conservation concern.
5 .4 D i s c u s s i o n a n d M a n a g e m e n t I m p l i c a t i o n s
The CWS field surveys found that although Ute Cemetery OpenSpace is quite small, its position on the
landscape and remnant and/or recovered native vegetation provides habitat for wildlife. The property
may provide most for the home range for a few small mammals but is unlikely to encompass but a
fraction of the territory of most of the bird and mammal species observed or identified indirectly within
its boundaries. Instead, the property’s juxtaposition between public lands administered by the White
Natural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space Page 11
5 .0 W i l d l i f e
Ute Cemetery Open Space is a small property yet provides some wildlife habitat.The interspersion of
the Roaring Fork riparian area and remnant patches of narrowleaf cottonwood riparian forest, quaking
aspen woodland, and mountain shrubland supports an assortment of wildlife that are typical of those
habitat types and generalists that occur in the area.
5 .1 M e t h o d s
Colorado Wildlife Science (CWS) biologists conducted pedestrian surveys on August 6, 2024, along a
single 700-meter transect that intersected the major habitat types occurring on the property. Two CWS
biologists followed the transect,recording all directly observed wildlife as well as all wildlife sign (e.g.,
beds, nests, fur or feathers, burrows, dens, pellets or scat, prey remains, food caches, and markings on
the ground or on tree bark) and sounds (i.e., bird songs and calls). In addition, CWS conducted a raptor
nest survey. Any raptors (i.e., eagles. falcons, hawks, owls) observed or detected by other means (e.g.,
calls, feathers, pellets) were recorded.
5 .2 R e s u l t s
The CWSfield surveys found that Ute Cemetery Open Space provides limited habitat for a variety of bird
and mammal wildlife species.
5 .2 .1 B i r d s
Fifty-seven individuals of 23 bird species were detected (Appendix D). These included many species
known to be tolerant of human activity (e.g., American robins, black-billed magpies, black-capped
chickadees), but few species that are more sensitive to human activity (e.g., dusky flycatcher). While
most of the birds detected were those that nest in a wide variety of habitat types, a few species with
more narrow habitat tolerances (e.g., specific vegetation and/or high quality habitat) were detected as
well.
TABLE 3.BIRDS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN KNOWN OR WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR AT UTE
CEMETERY OPEN SPACE
Common Name Scientific Name
U
S
F
S
B
L
M
F
W
S
P
I
F
CNHP CPW
Diurnal Raptors &Owls
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus S S C G5 S1BS3N SC, SGCN T2
Northern pygmy-owl Glaucidium gnoma G4G5 S3B
Columbidae –Pigeons &Doves
Band-tailed pigeon Patagioenas fasciata G4 S4B SGCN T2
Passerines
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis S C G5 S5 SGCN T2
Virginia’s warbler Oreothlypis virginiae W G5 S5 SGCN T2
Special management designations: USFS=United States Forest Service, S=US Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Species; BLM=Bureau of Land
Management, S=BLM Sensitive Species in Colorado; FWS=U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, C=Bird of Conservation Concern for Bird
Conservation Regions (BCR)16 & 18; CPW=Colorado Parks & Wildlife, SGCN=Species of Greatest Conservation Need; PIF=Partners In Flight,
W=Watch List.
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 269CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS268
Natural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space Page 14
may be necessary in order to stabilize these banks long enough for the seeded plants
to become established.
•Preserve and enhance the historical Iris found in and around the gravesites. This cultivar is of
historical importance and should be managed to allow for good growth and health. In general,
iris rhizomes should be divided every 3–5 years, replanted in late summer (after blooming) to
maintain vigor and prevent competition for nutrients.The plants should be monitored for insect
pests and fungal pathogens as well.
•Consider utilizing Ute Open Space as a repository for heritage and heirloom plant collections.
This could offer a unique way to preserve both botanical and cultural history. Such plants from
other open space properties could be transplanted into Ute Cemetery or otherwise propagated
(seeds, plants parts, etc.) which would add to the historical and cultural significance of this open
space.
6 .2 W i l d l i f e R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
•Most of the vegetation restoration and interventions described above would also benefit
wildlife. The riparian restoration would especially improve songbird habitat, foraging
opportunities for black bears, and cover for elk and mule deer.
•Given that the primary purpose of the property is as a cemetery and as a historic site, it is not
necessary to restrict human activity or use. Restoration of existing social trails and prevention
of new ones within the riparian corridor will, however, help to maintain current wildlife uses.
•Responsible dog management on the property would be beneficial as well. Leashes should be
strongly recommended or required on the property and i nterpretive and educational materials
about responsible dog ownership in the context of wildlife disturbance during outdoor
recreational pursuits should be made available.
•Avoid spraying herbicides between May 15 to July 31 to protect nesting songbirds.
o Limit applications to backpack sprayers and apply carefully If deemed necessary.
Natural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space Page 13
River National Forest to the south and the Roaring Fork River and its riparian corridor to the north allows
for movement to and through it as animals access the resources provided by the river and the
shrublands and forests of Richmond Ridge. That said, conservation of this tiny gem is worthwhile once
one considers its place in the greater landscape.
6 .0 R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
6 .1 V e g e t a t i o n R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
•Protect, preserve, and enhance the high-quality riparian corridor along the Roaring Fork River.
Limit vegetation removal in this area to noxious weed treatments and any trees hazardous to
the public. No thinning of the native shrubs in the understory should be conducted.
•Educate adjacent landowners about tree trimming and tree removal. During the onsite
assessment in September 2024, an adjacent landowner’s representative was observed to be
cutting small trees present on the open space property.
•Continue noxious weed management on the property. An integrated weed management
approach is recommended,incorporating mechanical (i.e. mowing, hand-pulling, weed-
steaming), chemical (using selective herbicides), and cultural techniques such as revegetating
with weed-free seed mixtures.
•Pollinator Habitat Enhancements. Several recommendations are presented to aid in enhancing
pollinator habitat .
o Plant a Diversity of Native Wildflowers. Plant should have a variety of flower shapes,
colors, and bloom times to attract a variety of pollinators. Plant native milkweeds
species for monarch caterpillars, include host plants for other butterflies, such as violets
for fritillary butterflies.
o Provide Nesting and Overwintering Habitats. These include patches of bare,
undisturbed soil for ground-nesting bees, maintaining dead wood and brush piles for
cavity-nesting bees and beetles, and consider installing bee boxes for both an
educational and habitat resources.
o Limit Herbicide Use. Carefully select and minimize the use of herbicides that harm
insects. If herbicide use is necessary, use targeted, pollinator -safe options and apply
them when pollinators are less active.
o Education. Install signage to inform visitors about the importance of pollinators,
consider offering guided walks, and partner with local conservation groups for research
and monitoring.
•Conduct “small-scale” restoration activities:
o Plant native riparian trees and shrubs such as blue spruce, willows, narrowleaf
cottonwood, alder,and redosier dogwood in the area along the river in the northern
portion of the project aera. This will increase habitat connectivity.
o A small social trail has developed on a steep bank down to the river. This area should be
signed to prevent use and the trail restored by decompacting the soils to the extent
practicable and seeding with native plant species. The use of erosion control blankets
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 271CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS270
Natural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space Page 16
Xerces 2013. Establishing Pollinator Meadows from Seed., The Xerces Society for Invertebrate
Conservation.
Natural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space Page 15
7 .0 R e f e r e n c e s
Ackerfield, J. 2022. Flora of Colorado, 2nd Edition.Botanical Research Institute of Texas. Fortworth,
Texas:818.
Adams, R. A. 2003. Bats of the Rocky Mountain West: natural history, ecology, and conservation.
University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. xiii + 289 pp.
Armstrong D. M. Fitzgerald J. P. Meaney C. A.. 2011. Mammals of Colorado. 2nd ed. Denver Museum of
Nature & Science, and University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, xi + 620 pp. ISBN 978-1-
60732-047-0,
Bryant, B. 1971. Geologic map of the Aspen quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado. Geologic Quadrangle.
CNHP 2020. Colorado Floristic Quality Assessment Database. Colorado Natural Heritage Program CNHP,
Fort Collins, Colorado. Data exported Feb 12, 2009, Colorado State University.
CNHP 2024. Colorado Natural Heritage Program CNHP, Element Occurrence Tracking Lists by State and
County updated July 2024. [Online]. Available: http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/list.html." from
http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/list.html.
Fitzgerald, J. P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1994 [1995]. Mammals of Colorado. Denver
Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado. xiii + 467 pp
Malone, D.G., & Emerick, J.C. (2007). Catalog of Stream and Riparian Habitat Quality for the Roaring
Fork River and Tributaries, Central Colorado. Roaring Fork Stream Health Initiative.
Missouri Botanic Garden. 2024. Plant Finder Website accessed. March 4, 2025.
https://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/PlantFinder/PlantFinderDetails.aspx
Rocchio, J. 2007. Floristic Quality Assessment Indices for Colorado Plant Communities, Prepared for the
Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Wetlands Program and US EPA
Region 8. Published by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, Colorado.
Sladek, Ron.2001. National Register of Historic Places Nomination: Ute Cemetery. Prepared for the City
of Aspen and Pitkin County, June 28, 2001
Tatanka Historical Associates. 2004. Brochure. Ute Cemetery, Aspen Colorado.
USDA-NRCS 2019. Soil Map—Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin
Counties., United States Department of Agriculture -Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Web Soil Survey accessed 8/20/2019.:3 pp.
USDA and USDOI 2015. Pollinator-Friendly Best Management Practices For Federal Lands, U.S.
Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Interior. May 11, 2015.Available:
https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/pollinators/BMPs/.
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI). 2020. Riparian area management: Proper functioning
condition assessment for lentic areas. 3rd ed. Technical Reference 1737-16. Bureau of Land
Management, National Operations Center, Denver, Colorado.
USNVC 2022. United States National Vegetation Classification Database, V2.03. Washington DC.
[usnvc.org] accessed 03 September 2019, Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation
Subcommittee.
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 273CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS272
Soil Map—Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties
(Ute Cemetery Soil Map)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
2/24/2025
Page 1 of 3433842043384043385004338540433858043382043380433870043387404338780433842043384043385004338540433858043382043380433870043387404338780343320 34330 343400 343440 343480 343520 34350 34300
343320 34330 343400 343440 343480 343520 34350 34300
39° 11' 3'' N 106° 48' 50'' W39° 11' 3'' N106° 48' 38'' W39° 10' 50'' N
106° 48' 50'' W39° 10' 50'' N
106° 48' 38'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
0 50 100 200 300Feet
0 25 50 100 150Meters
Map Scale: 1:1,890 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space A1Natural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space
A p p e n d i x A .W e b S o i l S u r v e y D a t a
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 275CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS274
Map 8nit Legend
Map 8nit S\PEol Map 8nit NaPe Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
9 Ansel-Anvik association, 25 to
45 percent slopes
0.0 0.
107 Uracca, moist-Mergel comple[,
1 to percent slopes,
e[tremely s
.7 88.5
108 Uracca, moist-Mergel comple[,
to 12 percent slopes,
e[tremely
0.3 4.0
120 Water 0.5 7.0
Totals for Area of Interest
Soil Map—Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties Ute Cemetery Soil Map
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
2/24/2025
Page 3 of 3
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space A3
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of
Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 15, Aug 29, 2024
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Sep 5, 2021—Sep 7,
2021
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Soil Map—Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties
(Ute Cemetery Soil Map)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
2/24/2025
Page 2 of 3
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space A2
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 277CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS276
Roaring Fork Mainstem: Segment 3 West
Roaring Fork River, Tagert to Aspen
Roaring Fork Stream Health Initiative
Malone and Emerick, March 2007 RF3-5
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space BNatural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space
A p p e n d i x B .R o a r i n g F o r k S t r e a m H e a l t h A s s e s s m e n t
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 279CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS278
are not able to hold water or enable rooting. Plant species along these cultivated areas typically require
supplemental moisture, indicating that soils have dried out and are incapable of holding onto water. In landscaped
areas wildlife benefits have been diminished by the reduction of woody riparian plant species so there is little
potential forage for ungulates or for songbird nesting habitat.
Noxious weeds and disturbance-caused undesirable plants are ubiquitous over the entire reach. Weeds,
including oxeye daisy, scentless chamomile, plumeless thistle, houndstongue, toadflax, pepperweed, and bindweed,
occur on over 5% of the area. Undesirable plants include red clover and Kentucky bluegrass which occur on > 10%
of the riparian area.
Erosion/sediment balance considerations
Human alteration has diminished the abundance of those channel and floodplain characteristics that enable
energy dissipation and sediment trapping. In developed areas much of the large woody debris and large rock has
been removed and there are few overflow channels. In undeveloped areas, these features are mostly still intact.
The channel is vertically stable with no active downcutting. However, stream banks are only moderately
laterally stable. Areas of erosion occur where human trampling has
destroyed riparian vegetation and along banks where manicured
lawns abut the stream. Sediment initiates from these eroded areas
and has affected 20% of the stream bottom. Cobbles are 25%
surrounded by sediment and there is slight deposition in pools. Thus,
as indicated by excess sedimentation, the stream is not in balance.
The amount of water in the stream is insufficient to move the amount
of sediment in the channel which has resulted in disproportionate
sediment deposition.
Wildlife considerations Although native plants are abundant in
undeveloped areas, there is little sign of browsing – likely due to
frequent human disturbance.
Instream wildlife benefits are somewhat diminished by a
decrease in stream structural heterogeneity. Deep pools are
infrequent and sediment has begun to deposit in those that do occur.
Channelization has decreased some of the natural bank and instream
habitat important to aquatic biota. Riffle frequency is, however,
optimal and provides excellent macroinvertebrate habitat. In natural
areas, the abundance of epifaunal substrate and cover which is
provided by undercut banks, cobble and snags is also optimal.
The habitat benefits provided by cobbles and pools are
undermined by excess sedimentation, which has embedded the
cobbles and is filling pools, resulting in habitat elimination.
Native habitat persists in parts of this reach where
development only minimally encroaches into the
riparian zone. Here ecosystem functions, such as energy
dissipation and wildlife habitat, continue to operate.
Along 30% of this reach riparian vegetation has been removed, which negatively affects both aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife. Canopy removal results in the elimination of shade, essential to maintain cooler water
temperatures required by native fish. Removal of trees and shrubs also removes habitat that might otherwise be used
by wildlife for nesting or foraging.
Management Recommendations
Restore ecologically sustainable instream flows.
Buffer nonpoint source pollutants such as lawn runoff and sedimentation before they enter the stream by
restoring the riparian vegetative zone.
Reduce erosion by revegetating stream banks with native riparian vegetation.
Increase instream stability and habitat structural heterogeneity by installing instream large woody debris.
Protect natural, unaltered areas of this reach with riparian setbacks of at least 50 meters where no development
or vegetation removal is permitted.
Roaring Fork River, Tagert to Aspen
Roaring Fork Stream Health Initiative
Malone and Emerick, March 2007 RF3-67
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space B
Roaring Fork Mainstem Segment 3, Reach 14.
Habitat Condition: Stream – Moderately Modified; Riparian LB/RB – Moderately Modified/Moderately Modified.
Stream Class (Rosgen): B2/B3. Stream Order: 5th. Reach Length: 0.7 km.
Summary
Cumulative impacts from human alteration of the stream bank and riparian habitat are impacting stream
function. Water diversions continue to exacerbate development impacts. Consequently stream and riparian functions
are deteriorating.
Hydrologic considerations
The stream channel has been altered by housing
development, bank armoring and bridges. However, over time there
has been some recovery of banks and channel structure. Stream
flows are altered by a large irrigation diversion which, during the
agricultural growing season, diverts almost all of the flow out of the
stream during summer months. During spring snowmelt, the
floodplain is inundated and bank-full flows occur but during low
flow season excessive substrate is exposed due to diversion-induced
dewatering. Beaver sign is common but dams are not present and
consequently flows are not moderated.
Stream habitat diversity is enhanced by frequent riffles and
large instream boulders that help to enable stream functions such as
energy dissipation and nutrient cycling. However, because only 2 of
4 velocity/depth regimes are present, fast-shallow and slow-shallow
(fast-deep and slow-deep are missing) habitat heterogeneity is
diminished. Thus stream stability is compromised by the loss of
structural diversity. Removal of stream bank vegetation has frequently
accompanied housing development. Wildlife values and
other riparian functions such as pollution filtration
have been lost with vegetation alteration.
Human development has decreased riparian zone width to
less than 6 meters along 30% to 40% of the reach. Over the
remainder of the reach, riparian zone width is up to potential.
Removal of riparian vegetation has decreased precipitation
infiltration, energy dissipation and pollution filtration functions.
Surrounding uplands on both banks have been modified by human development. Especially impactive are
the houses with manicured lawns and accompanying roads that have replaced forested habitat. Yard waste and dog
waste is frequently dumped over the edge and into the natural riparian area. From here nutrient and pesticide laden
waste is carried into the stream with snowmelt and precipitation. Consequences of these alterations include
increased and unfiltered runoff, and an increase in nutrients and pollutants that enter the stream.
Vegetation considerations
Native riparian habitat is characterized by a canopy of cottonwood-spruce riparian forest and a shrub layer
of thinleaf alder and willow species. However, development has replaced much of the natural vegetation with
bluegrass lawns and ornamentals. Over 30% to 40% of the reach, riparian vegetation structure and composition has
been degraded and is inadequate to enable riparian functions or provide quality aquatic or terrestrial wildlife habitat.
In numerous areas manicured lawns abut the river where riparian vegetation has been eliminated. However,
approximately 70% of the stream banks are still covered with native vegetation that has deep, binding rootmasses
that are capable of stabilizing bank soils and holding onto water. On the remaining 30% of the banks, landscaping
vegetation, such as Kentucky bluegrass dominates the habitat. Bluegrass has a low stream bank stability rating
indicating a low ability to prevent erosion.
In natural areas, all age classes of woody riparian species are present in a good distribution. In developed
areas, typically only mature age-class woody plant species remain. Potential for habitat sustainability and recovery
depends on the presence of a good distribution of all age classes of native woody trees and shrubs. Consequently,
those developments that have cleared trees and shrubs have also degraded habitat sustainability.
Soils in natural areas are appropriately deep and sufficient to enable rooting and hold onto water. Plant
species in these natural areas, such as willow and alder, indicate an appropriate amount of soil moisture for a
sufficient duration of time. Along areas where landscaped lawns dominate, soils are thin and prone to collapse, thus
Roaring Fork River, Tagert to Aspen
Roaring Fork Stream Health Initiative
Malone and Emerick, March 2007 RF3-66
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space B
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 281CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS280
In undeveloped areas along this
reach, large boulders and a good
cover of riparian vegetation
provides foraging and nesting
habitat for American dippers.
Stream Assessment for Roaring Fork Segment 3, Reach 14
1 7 1 5
1 1
1 3 1 3 1 3
1 9
888866
024681 0
1 2
1 4
1 6
1 8
20Epi
faunal C overEmb eddednessVel/Depth RegSed DepositionC hannel Flow Statu sChannel AlterationRiffle FrequencyL B Stab ilityRB Stab ilityL B Veg ProtectionRB V eg P rotectionL B Rip Z one W idthRB Rip Z one W idthHabitat ParametersHabitat ScoresRiparian Habitat Assessment for Roaring Fork Segment 3, Reach 141
0. 66 0. 66 0. 66 0. 66 0. 66 0. 66
00
0. 33 0. 33
1 1 1 1
0. 75 0. 75 0. 66 0. 66
00. 1
0. 2
0. 3
0. 4
0. 5
0. 6
0. 7
0. 8
0. 9
1Stream IncisementL ateral Cu ttingStream BalanceL B Su ff icient SoilRB Su fficient SoilL B Veg CompRB Veg CompL B W eedsRB WeedsL B U ndesir. PlantsRB Undesir. PlantsL B W oody Estab lish.RB W oody Estab .L B B row se U til.RB Browse Util. L B Rip. Veg. C overRB Rip. V eg. C overLB Energy dissipationRB Energy dissipationHabitat ParametersHabitat ScoresRoaring Fork River, Tagert to Aspen
Roaring Fork Stream Health Initiative
Malone and Emerick, March 2007 RF3-69
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space B
General Characteristics
Location RF3-14: N39 10.873/W 106 48.487; N39 11.109/W106 48.728
Elevation: 7985’. Life Zone: montane. Ecosystem: Natural areas are characterized by cottonwood-
spruce forest. Developed areas are dominated by bluegrass lawns and ornamentals.
Watershed Features: predominant surrounding land use – residential; local watershed NPS pollution – obvious
sources including lawns and roads; local watershed erosion – moderate due to development.
Dominant Native Vegetation: thinleaf alder, willow spp., Colorado blue spruce, narrowleaf cottonwood.
Instream Features: stream width – 15 m; stream depth – 0.38 m; canopy cover – partly shaded (10%); high water
mark – 1.5 m; stream morphology types – riffles 45%, pools 10%, runs 45%; channelized – yes; dam present – no.
Large Woody Debris (0 none to 4 abundant): 1 (rare).
Dominant Aquatic Vegetation: dominant species – periphyton: proportion of reach with aquatic vegetation – 90%.
Water Quality: water odors – normal; water surface oils – none; turbidity – clear.
Sediment/Substrate: odors – normal; oils – absent; deposits – sand; undersides of unembedded stones black – yes.
Inorganic Substrate Components: bedrock 0%; boulder 40%; cobble 40%; gravel 10%; sand 10%.
Organic Substrate Components: detritus (CPOM) 10%; muck-mud (FPOM) 0%; marl 0%.
Assessment Data
EPA Habitat Assessment Score: 145/200.
NRCS Habitat Assessment Score: left bank – 45/61; right bank – 45/61.
Weedy species: oxeye daisy, scentless chamomile, plumeless thistle, houndstongue, toadflax, pepperweed,
bindweed, reed canarygrass.
Disturbance-caused undesirable plants: Kentucky bluegrass, red clover, ornamental “escapees”.
Dominant Native Riparian Vegetative Species
Trees: narrowleaf cottonwood, Colorado blue spruce, quaking aspen, lodgepole pine, Ponderosa pine,
Shrubs: thinleaf alder, willow spp. including bluestem, twinberry honeysuckle, red-osier dogwood, sticky
laurel, rabbit brush, antelope bitterbrush, kinnikinnick, Oregon grape.
Grasses and Forbs: sedge spp. including aquatic sedge, rush spp, common horsetail, cow parsnip, Fremont
geranium, twisted stalk, Colorado columbine, goldenrod spp., mountain pussytoes, sulphur flower, western
mugwort, potentilla spp., northern bedstraw, wooly mullein, amaranth tumbleweed.
Watershed Activities and Disturbances Observed (intensity – low, moderate, heavy):
Residential: residences – moderate, maintained lawns – moderate, construction – low, roads – moderate.
Recreational: hiking trails – moderate.
Stream management: angling pressure – moderate, channelization – low, water level fluctuations –
moderate to heavy.
Other Human Influences:
Nutrient enrichment: an overabundance of algal growth indicates excessive nutrient load.
Barriers to fish movement: none
Manure presence (evaluated only if livestock or human waste discharges are present): NA
Site Characteristics
Waterbody character (5 pristine/appealing to 1 disturbed/unappealing): 3/3
Beaver: beaver sign – common; flow modification – minor.
Dominant Land Use: suburban; forest age class – NA.
Functioning Rating: at risk.
Biological Indicators of Stream Condition:
Benthic macroinvertebrate community ratio of pollution intolerant to facultative to tolerant individuals was
66/16/11. Community composition indicates potential water quality impairment.
Two American dippers were observed in the survey area. Dipper abundance indicates the presence of sufficient
EPT macroinvertebrate abundance for food resources, stable banks for nest sites and diverse instream habitat
structure for resting, foraging and protection.
A survey of the breeding bird community was not conducted.
Estimated abundance of periphyton was ‘3” (abundant) and filamentous algae “2” (common). Periphyton and
algal abundance indicates potential nutrient excess. Additionally, the undersides of cobbles were black
indicating anoxic substrate conditions.
Roaring Fork River, Tagert to Aspen
Roaring Fork Stream Health Initiative
Malone and Emerick, March 2007 RF3-68
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space B4
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 283CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS282
te Cemetery - Vacular Plant Secie it
Scientific Name Common Name Family Origin C-
Value
Voucher
Photo
Code
!ree
Picea pungens Blue spruce N 6PinaceaePIPU
Pinus contorta var. latifolia Lodgepole pine N 5PinaceaePICOL
Pinus ponderosa subsp. scopulorum Ponderosa pine N 5PinaceaePIPOS
Populus angustifolia Narrowleaf cottonwood N 5SalicaceaePOAN3
Populus tremuloides uaking aspen N 5SalicaceaePOTR5
Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir N 5PinaceaePSME
Shru"#Su"hru"
Amelanchier alnifolia Ser&iceberry N 6RosaceaeAMAL2
Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Mountain big sagebrush N 5AsteraceaeARTRV
erberis repens (Mahonia)Oregon grape N 5BerberidaceaeMARE,,
Ceanothus fendleri Fendler's ceanothus,
buckbrush
N 7RhamnaceaeCEFE
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Sticky rabbitbrush N 5AsteraceaeCHVI8
Cornus sericea subsp. sericea Redosier dogwood N 7CornaceaeCOSES
ricameria nauseosa
(=Chrysothamnus)
Rubber rabbitbrush N 3AsteraceaeERNAN5
ricameria parryi Parry's rabbitbrush N 4AsteraceaeERPAP,0
!uniperus communis subsp. alpina Common 6uniper N 6Cupressaceae7UCOS2
Lonicera involucrata (=#istegia)Twinberry honeysuckle N 7CaprifoliaceaeLOINI
Lonicera tatarica Tatarian honeysuckle I 0CaprifoliaceaeLOTA
Paxistima myrsinites Mountain lo&er N 7CelastraceaePAMY
Prunus virginiana var. melanocarpa Chokecherry N 4RosaceaePRVIM
Purshia tridentata Antelope bitterbrush N 6RosaceaePUTR2
%uercus gambelii Gambel oak N 5Fagaceae UGA
Ribes inerme Whitestem gooseberry N 5GrossulariaceaeRIIN2
Rosa woodsii (=R. blanda)Woods' rose N 5RosaceaeROWO
Rubus idaeus var. strigosus Red raspberry N 5RosaceaeRUIDS2
Rubus parviflorus var. parviflorus
(=Rubacer)
Thimbleberry N 7RosaceaeRUPAP2
Salix bebbiana Bebb willow N 6SalicaceaeSABE2
Salix drummondiana Drummond's willow N 6SalicaceaeSADR
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space CNatural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space
A p p e n d i x C .V a s c u l a r P l a n t S p e c i e s L i s t
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 285CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS284
Scientific Name Common Name Family Origin C-
Value
Voucher
Photo
Code
Perennial For"
Achillea millefolium (=A. lanulosa)Common yarrow N 4AsteraceaeACMIO
Anaphalis margaritacea Pearly e&erlasting N 4AsteraceaeANMA
Antennaria parvifolia Small-leaf pussytoes N 5AsteraceaeANPA4
Antennaria rosea Rosy pussytoes N 5AsteraceaeANRO2
Anthemis tinctoria Golden chamomile I 0AsteraceaeANTI
Arceuthobium Dwarf mistletoe N 5ViscaceaeARCEU
Arnica cordifolia Heartleaf arnica N 7AsteraceaeARCO=
Artemisia dracunculus (=.ligosporus)Wild tarragon N 3AsteraceaeARDR4
Artemisia ludoviciana White sage N 4AsteraceaeARLU
alsamorhiza sagittata Arrowleaf balsamroot N 5AsteraceaeBASA3
oechera retrofracta Second rockcress N 7BrassicaceaeARHOR
Calochortus gunnisonii Mariposa lily N 7LiliaceaeCAGU
Castille/a linariifolia Narrowleaf Indian
paintbrush
N 6OrobanchaceaeCALI4
Castille/a miniata Giant red Indian
paintbrush
N 7OrobanchaceaeCAMI,2
Cerastium arvense subsp. strictum Field chickweed N 5CaryophyllaceaeCEARS2
Chamerion angustifolium
(= pilobium)
Fireweed N 4OnagraceaeCHANC
Crepis acuminata (=Psilochenia)Tapertip hawksbeard N 6AsteraceaeCRACA
remogone congesta Ballhead sandwort N 8CaryophyllaceaeARCOC4
rigeron flagellaris Trailing fleabane N 3AsteraceaeERFL
rigeron speciosus Aspen fleabane N 5AsteraceaeERSP4
riogonum umbellatum var.
umbellatum
Common sulphur-flower N 6PolygonaceaeERUMU2
,rasera speciosa Monument plant,
Elkweed
N 6GentianaceaeFRSP
0alium boreale (=0. septentrionale)Northern bedstraw N 6RubiaceaeGABO2
0alium odoratum Sweetscented bedstraw I 0RubiaceaeGAOD3
0eranium richardsonii Richardson's geranium N 6GeraniaceaeGERI
0eum macrophyllum var. perincisum Largeleaf a&ens N 6RosaceaeGEMAP
Heliomeris multiflora Showy goldeneye N 4AsteraceaeHEMU3
Heracleum maximum (=H.
sphondylium subsp. montanum)
Cow parsnip N 6ApiaceaeHEMA80
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space C
Scientific Name Common Name Family Origin C-
Value
Voucher
Photo
Code
Salix geyeriana Geyer willow N 6SalicaceaeSAGE2
Salix monticola Mountain willow N 6SalicaceaeSAMO2
Symphoricarpos rotundifolius (=S.
oreophilus)
Roundleaf snowberry N 5CaprifoliaceaeSYRO
Perennial $raminoid
Agropyron cristatum (=A. desertorum)Crested wheatgrass I 0PoaceaeAGDE2
Agrostis stolonifera Creeping bentgrass I 0PoaceaeAGST2
Alopecurus magellenicus (=A. alpinus)Alpine foxtail N 7PoaceaeALAL2
Alopecurus pratensis Meadow foxtail I 0PoaceaeALPR3
romus carinatus (=Ceratochloa, .
marginatus)
California brome N 5PoaceaeBRCA5
romus inermis Smooth brome I 0PoaceaeBRINI2
Calamagrostis canadensis Blue6oint reedgrass N 6PoaceaeCACA4
Carex bebbii Bebb's sedge N 7CyperaceaeCABE2
Carex geyeri Elk sedge N 6CyperaceaeCAGE2
Carex kelloggii (=C. lenticularis var.
lipocarpa)
Kellogg's sedge N =Cyperaceae CALEL3
Carex pachystachya Chamisso sedge N 7CyperaceaeCAPA,4
Carex utriculata Beaked sedge N 5CyperaceaeCAUT
#actylis glomerata Orchardgrass I 0PoaceaeDAGL
lymus elymoides Squirreltail N 4PoaceaeELEL5
lymus lanceolatus Thickspike wheatgrass N 4PoaceaeELLA3
lymus trachycaulus Slender wheatgrass N 4PoaceaeELTR7
riocoma nelsonii (=Achnatherum)Nelson's needlegrass N 6PoaceaeACNE=
!uncus dudleyi Dudley's rush N 57uncaceae7UDU2
+oeleria macrantha Prairie 6unegrass N 6PoaceaeKOMA
Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass I 0PoaceaePHAR3
Phleum pratense Timothy I 0PoaceaePHPR3
Poa palustris Fowl bluegrass N 6PoaceaePOPA2
Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass I 0PoaceaePOPR
Pseudoroegneria spicata subsp.
inermis
Bluebunch wheatgrass N 7PoaceaePSSPI
Schedonorus pratensis (=,estuca)Meadow fescue I 0PoaceaeSCPR4
Scirpus microcarpus Panicled bulrush N 5CyperaceaeSCMI2
Thinopyrum intermedium Intermediate wheatgrass I 0PoaceaeTHIN6
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space C
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 287CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS286
Scientific Name Common Name Family Origin C-
Value
Voucher
Photo
Code
Taraxacum officinale Dandelion I 0AsteraceaeTAOF
Trifolium pratense Red clo&er I 0FabaceaeTRPR2
3icia americana American &etch N 5FabaceaeVIAM
4yethia arizonica AriCona mule-ears N 3AsteraceaeWYAR
Fern and Fern %llie
5uisetum arvense Field horsetail N 4EquisetaceaeE AR
%nnual#&iennial For"
Carduus acanthoides Plumeless thistle I+ 0AsteraceaeCAAC
Chenopodium album Lambsquarters I 0AmaranthaceaeCHAL7
Collomia linearis Narrowleaf mountain
trumpet
N 4PolemoniaceaeCOLI2
Cynoglossum officinale Houndstongue I+ 0BoraginaceaeCYOF
0ayophytum diffusum subsp.
parviflorum
Diffuse groundsmoke N 4OnagraceaeGADIP
Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce I 0AsteraceaeLASE
Lepidium campestre (=6eolepia)Field pepperweed I 0BrassicaceaeLECA5
Melilotus officinale Yellow sweetclo&er I 0FabaceaeMEOF
Thlaspi arvense Field pennycress I 0BrassicaceaeTHAR5
Tragopogon dubius subsp. ma/or Western salsify I 0AsteraceaeTRDU
Tragopogon pratensis Meadow salsify I 0AsteraceaeTRLA30
Tripleurospermum inodorum
(=Matricaria perforatum)
Scentless chamomile I+ 0AsteraceaeTRPE2,
3erbascum thapsus Mullein I+ 0ScrophulariaceaeVETH
%nnual $raminoid
romus tectorum (=Anisantha)Cheatgrass, Downy
brome
I+ 0PoaceaeBRTE
Poa bulbosa Bulbous bluegrass I+ 0PoaceaePOBU
6otes7 6omenclature generally follows ,lora of Colorado 8nd ed. (Ackerfield 8988) with 4eber and 4ittmann (89:8) synonyms in
parantheses. Code7 6ational ;S#A Plants #atabase. .rigin7 6=6ative< I=Introduced, I= = Introdcued Colorado Listed 6oxious 4eed. C>
3alue from Rocchio (899?), where 9 (non>native species)< :>@ (commonly found in non>natural areas), A>B (e5ually found n natural and
non>natural areas)< ?>C (obligate to natural areas but can sustain some habitat degredation)< :9 (obligate to high 5uality natural areas
(relatively unaltered from pre> uropean settlement). 3oucher D Photo7 checkmark indicates whether a voucher andDor photograph
were taken, respectively. List compiled by Rea .rthner, Peak cological Services LLC.
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space C
Scientific Name Common Name Family Origin C-
Value
Voucher
Photo
Code
Heterotheca villosa Hairy false goldenaster N 3AsteraceaeHEVI4
Ipomopsis aggregata Scarlet gilia N 5PolemoniaceaeIPAG
Iris x flavescens Moonlight yellow iris,
Pale yellow iris
I 0IridaceaeIRIS
Lathyrus leucanthus (=L. lanszwerti
var. leucanthus)
Whiteflower pea N 6FabaceaeLALAL3
Leucanthemum vulgare Oxeye daisy I+ 0AsteraceaeLEVU
Linaria vulgaris Butter and eggs, toadflax I+ 0PlantaginaceaeLIVU2
Linum lewisii (=Adenolinum)Wild blue flax N 4LinaceaeLILEL2
Lupinus polyphyllus var. prunophilus Hairy bigleaf lupine N 6FabaceaeLUPR2
Machaeranthera canescens Hoary tansyaster N 4AsteraceaeMACA2
Maianthemum stellatum Starry false Solomon's
seal
N 7AsparagaceaeMAST4
Medicago lupulina Black medic I 0FabaceaeMELU
Medicago sativa Alfalfa I 0FabaceaeMESA
Melandrium dioicum (=Silene
latifolia, Lychnis alba)
Red catchfly I 0CaryophyllaceaeSIDI4
Mertensia ciliata Chiming bells N 7BoraginaceaeMECI3
Myosotis sylvatica Woodland forget-me-not I 0BoraginaceaeMYSY
Penstemon strictus Rocky Mountain
penstemon
N 5PlantaginaceaePEST2
Phlox longifolia Longleaf phlox N 6PolemoniaceaePHLO2
Pseudocymopterus montanus
(=Cymopterus lemmonii)
Alpine false springparsley N 6ApiaceaePSMO
Pulsatilla patens subsp. multifida Pasque flower N 7RanunculaceaePUPAM
Pyrola asarifolia (=P. rotundifolia)Roundleaf wintergreen N 8EricaceaePYASA
Rumex acetosella (=Acetosella
vulgaris)
Sheep sorrel I 0PolygonaceaeRUAC3
Senecio eremophilus var. kingii King's ragwort; Cutleaf
groundsel
N 4AsteraceaeSEERK
Senecio integerrimus Lambstongue groundsel N 5AsteraceaeSEIN2
Senecio serra var. admirabilis Tall ragwort N 7AsteraceaeSESEA
Solidago nemoralis Gray goldenrod N 5AsteraceaeSONE
Solidago simplex var. simplex (=S.
spathulata)
Mt. Albert goldenrod N 6AsteraceaeSOSIS3
Tanacetum vulgare Common tansy I+ 0AsteraceaeTAVU
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space C4
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 289CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS288
Natural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space Page D2
Common Name Species Occurrence atBurlingame OSCPW State WildlifeAction Plan Priority TierFederal StatusState StatusUSFS Sensitive SpeciesBLM Sensitive SpeciesUSFWS Birds ofConservation ConcernPIF US-CanadaWatch ListNatureServeGlobal Status RankCNHP/NatureServeState Status RankDeclining TrendGreen-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorurus P-H G5 S5 x
Hairy woodpecker Dryobates villosus P-H G5 S5
House finch Haemorhous mexicanus P-H G5 S5
House wren Troglodytes aedon B-C G5 S5
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis P-H Tier 2 x x G4 S4
MacGillivray's warbler Geothlypis tolmiei P-H G5 S4B
Mountain chickadee Poecile gambeli B-C G5 S5
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura P-H G5 S5
Northern pygmy-owl Glaucidium gnoma P-H G4G5 S3B
Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus P-H G5 S5
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi P-H
Pine siskin Spinus pinus P-H G5 S5 x
Plumbeous vireo Vireo plumbeus P-H G5 SNRB
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis P-H G5 S5
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus P-H Tier 2
Ruby-crowned kinglet Corthylio calendula P-H G5 S5B
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus P-H G5 S3S4B,S4N
Song sparrow Melospiza melodia B-C G5 S5
Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus B-C G5 S5
Steller's jay Cyanocitta stelleri P-H G5 S5
Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor B-C G5 S5
Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina B-C G5 S5
Virginia’s warbler Oreothlypis virginiae B-C Tier 2 x G5 S5
Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus B-C G5 S5B
Western flycatcher Empidonax difficilis B-C G5 S5B
Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana P-H G5 S4B
Western wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus P-H G5 S5
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata P-H G5 S5
MAMMALS
American badger Taxidea taxus P-H G5 S4
American black bear Ursus americanus Y-C G5 S5
American ermine Mustela richardsonii P-H G5 S4
Natural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space Page D1
A p p e n d i x D .W i l d l i f e S p e c i e s K n o w n o r S u s p e c t e d t o O c c u r a t U t e C e m e t e r y O p e n S p a c e
Species are grouped by taxonomic group, and then sorted alphabetically by common name. Legend: Occurrence at Ute Cemetery OS: B –Breeding Season, C – Confirmed
Occurrence, P – Possible Occurrence/Documented Occurrence within 1 Mile, H – Habitat Present/Likely Occurrence, S –Suspected Occurrence, X – Extirpated, Xr –
Extirpated/Reintroduced, L – Likely Occurs, M – Known to Occur during Migration, Y –Occurs Year-round. Federal Status:LE –listed Endangered, LT –listed Threatened,
LT*-listed Threatened statusapplies toDistinct Population Segment only,C– Candidate,P– Petitioned,N -Not Warranted. State Listing: SE –state endangered,ST –state
threatened,SC –Special Concern.Agency Sensitive:BLM –Bureau of LandManagement,USFS –U.S.Forest Service,USFWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of
Conservation Concern for Bird Conservation Regions 16 and 18. NatureServe Global/State Status: 1 – critically imperiled,2–imperiled,3– vulnerable,4–apparently
secure,butwith cause forlong-term concern,5– demonstrablysecure,T– subspeciesstatus,Q– taxonomic uncertainty, B – breeding season occurrence, N –non-
breeding, NR –not ranked, X- extirpated.
Common Name Species Occurrence atBurlingame OSCPW State WildlifeAction Plan Priority TierFederal StatusState StatusUSFS Sensitive SpeciesBLM Sensitive SpeciesUSFWS Birds ofConservation ConcernPIF US-CanadaWatch ListNatureServeGlobal Status RankCNHP/NatureServeState Status RankDeclining TrendBIRDS
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos B-C G5 S5
American goshawk Accipiter atricapillus P-H Tier 2 SC x x G5 S3B
American robin Turdus migratorius B-C G5 S5
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus P-H Tier 2 SC x x x G5 S1B,S3N
Band-tailed pigeon Patagioenas fasciata P-H Tier 2 G4 S4B x
Bank swallow Riparia riparia P-H G4 S4B
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica P-H G5 S5
Belted kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon P-H G5 S5B
Black-billed magpie Pica hudsonia B-C G5 S5
Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus B-C G5 S5
Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus P-H G5 S4B
Brewer's blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus P-H G5 S5B,S4N
Broad-tailed hummingbird Cynanthus latirostris B-C x G5 S5
Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater P-H G5 S5
Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum P-H G5 S5B,S4N
Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina P-H G5 S4B,S5N
Common raven Corvus corax P-H G5 S5
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii P-H G5 S3S4B,S4N x
Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis B-C G5 S5
Dusky flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri B-C G5 S5B
Dusky grouse Dendragapus obscurus P-H G5 S5
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus P-H G5 S5
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 291CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS290
Natural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space
A p p e n d i x E .U S F W S C o n s u l t a t i o n L e t t e r
Natural Resource Baseline Report –Ute Cemetery Open Space Page D3
Common Name Species Occurrence atBurlingame OSCPW State WildlifeAction Plan Priority TierFederal StatusState StatusUSFS Sensitive SpeciesBLM Sensitive SpeciesUSFWS Birds ofConservation ConcernPIF US-CanadaWatch ListNatureServeGlobal Status RankCNHP/NatureServeState Status RankDeclining TrendAmerican moose Alces americanus P-H G5 SNA
Bushy-tailed woodrat Neotoma cinerea Y-H G5 S5
Bobcat Lynx rufus Y-C G5 S5
Coyote Canis latrans P-C G5 S5
Elk Cervus canadensis W-C G5 S5
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes P-H x x G4 S3 x
Gray wolf Canis lupus P-H Tier 2 LE SE x G4G5 SX
Golden-mantled ground squirrel Callospermophilus lateralis B-C G5 S5
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus P-H Tier 2 x x G5 S5B
Least chipmunk Neotamias minimus B-C G5 S5
Little brown myotis Myotis lucifigus P-H Tier 1 P x G3 S4
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans P-H G4 S5
Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis P-H x G5 S4
Long-tailed vole Microtus longicaudus P-H G5 S5
Mountain lion Puma concolor Y-C G5 S4
Montane vole Microtus montanus P-H G5 S5
Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus hemionus B-C G5 S4
North American deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatis Y-C G5 S5
North American red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus P-H G5 S5
Northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides Y-C G5 S5
Pacific marten Martes caurina P-H Tier 2 x G4G5 S4
Raccoon Procyon lotor P-H G5 S5
Red fox Vulpes vulpes Y-C G5 S5
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans P-H G3G4 S3S4 x
Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis P-H G5 S5
Townsend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens P-H Tier 1 SC x x G3G4T3T4 S2
Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum x G5 S4
Wyoming ground squirrel Urocitellus elegans Y-C G5 S5
Yellow-bellied marmot Marmota flaviventris P-H G5 S5
REPTILES
Western terrestrial garter snake Thamnophis elegans P-H
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 293CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS292
Project code: 2025-0063848 03/04/2025 18:57:11 UTC
2 of 15
▪
evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment ;e prepared to determine =hether the pro9ect may
a ect listed or proposed species andor designated or proposed critical ha;itat. Recommended
contents o a Biological Assessment are descri;ed at 50 C R 402.12.
a ederal agency determines/ ;ased on the Biological Assessment or ;iological evaluation/ that
listed species andor designated critical ha;itat may ;e a ected ;y the proposed pro9ect/ the
agency is re?uired to consult =ith the Service pursuant to 50 C R 402. n addition/ the Service
recommends that candidate species/ proposed species and proposed critical ha;itat ;e addressed
=ithin the consultation. <ore in ormation on the regulations and procedures or section 7
consultation/ including the role o permit or license applicants/ can ;e ound in the BEndangered
Species Consultation and;ookB at: https:===. =s.govsitesde ault ilesdocuments
igratory Birds: n addition to responsi;ilities to protect threatened and endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act 3ESA5/ there are additional responsi;ilities under the
<igratory Bird
reaty Act 3<B
A5 and the Bald and -olden Eagle Protection Act 3B-EPA5 to
protect native ;irds rom pro9ect-related impacts. Any activity/ intentional or unintentional/
resulting in take o migratory ;irds/ including eagles/ is prohi;ited unless other=ise permitted ;y
the .S. ish and #ildli e Service 350 C. .R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 .S.C. Sec. 6683a55. or more
in ormation regarding these Acts/ see https:===. =s.govprogrammigratory-;ird-permit=hat-
=e-do.
he <B
A has no provision or allo=ing take o migratory ;irds that may ;e unintentionally
killed or in9ured ;y other=ise la= ul activities. t is the responsi;ility o the pro9ect proponent to
comply =ith these Acts ;y identi ying potential impacts to migratory ;irds and eagles =ithin
applica;le NEPA documents 3=hen there is a ederal nexus5 or a BirdEagle Conservation Plan
3=hen there is no ederal nexus5. Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid
or minimi@e the production o pro9ect-related stressors or minimi@e the exposure o ;irds and
their resources to the pro9ect-related stressors. or more in ormation on avian stressors and
recommended conservation measures/ see https:===. =s.govli;rarycollectionsthreats-;irds.
n addition to <B
A and B-EPA/ Executive Order 13186: esponsi ilities o eeral genies
to rotet igratory irs/ o;ligates all ederal agencies that engage in or authori@e activities
that might a ect migratory ;irds/ to minimi@e those e ects and encourage conservation measures
that =ill improve ;ird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides or the protection o ;oth
migratory ;irds and migratory ;ird ha;itat. or in ormation regarding the implementation o
Executive Order 13186/ please visit https:===. =s.govpartnercouncil-conservation-
migratory-;irds.
#e appreciate your concern or threatened and endangered species.
he Service encourages
ederal agencies to include conservation o threatened and endangered species into their pro9ect
planning to urther the purposes o the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header o
this letter =ith any re?uest or consultation or correspondence a;out your pro9ect that you su;mit
to our o ice.
Attachment3s5:
O icial Species List
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space
03042025 18:57:11
C
nited States Department o the nterior
S AND # LDL E SER' CE
#estern Colorado Ecological Services ield O ice
445 #est -unnison Avenue/ Suite 240
-rand 0unction/ CO 81501-5711
Phone: 39705 628-7180 ax: 39705 245-6933
n Reply Re er
o:
Pro9ect Code: 2025-0063848
Pro9ect Name: te Cemetery Natural Resource Baseline
Su;9ect: List o threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed pro9ect
location or may ;e a ected ;y your proposed pro9ect
o #hom t <ay Concern:
he enclosed species list identi ies threatened/ endangered/ proposed and candidate species/ as
=ell as proposed and inal designated critical ha;itat/ that may occur =ithin the ;oundary o your
proposed pro9ect andor may ;e a ected ;y your proposed pro9ect.
he species list ul ills the
re?uirements o the .S. ish and #ildli e Service 3Service5 under section 73c5 o the
Endangered Species Act 3Act5 o 1973/ as amended 316 .S.C. 1531 et se5.
Ne= in ormation ;ased on updated surveys/ changes in the a;undance and distri;ution o
species/ changed ha;itat conditions/ or other actors could change this list. Please eel ree to
contact us i you need more current in ormation or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
ederally proposed/ listed/ and candidate species and ederally designated and proposed critical
ha;itat. Please note that under 50 C R 402.123e5 o the regulations implementing section 7 o the
Act/ the accuracy o this species list should ;e veri ied a ter 90 days.
his veri ication can ;e
completed ormally or in ormally as desired.
he Service recommends that veri ication ;e
completed ;y visiting the PaC =e;site at regular intervals during pro9ect planning and
implementation or updates to species lists and in ormation. An updated list may ;e re?uested
through the PaC system ;y completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
he purpose o the Act is to provide a means =here;y threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon =hich they depend may ;e conserved. nder sections 73a5315 and 73a5325 o the
Act and its implementing regulations 350 C R 402 et se5/ ederal agencies are re?uired to
utili@e their authorities to carry out programs or the conservation o threatened and endangered
species and to determine =hether pro9ects may a ect threatened and endangered species andor
designated critical ha;itat.
A Biological Assessment is re?uired or construction pro9ects 3or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts5 that are ma9or ederal actions signi icantly a ecting the ?uality o the
human environment as de ined in the National Environmental Policy Act 342 .S.C. 4332325
3c55. or pro9ects other than ma9or construction activities/ the Service suggests that a ;iological
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 295CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS294
Project code: 2025-0063848 03/04/2025 18:57:11 UTC
4 of 15
PRO
ECT SUMMAR
Pro9ect Code: 2025-0063848
Pro9ect Name: te Cemetery Natural Resource Baseline
Pro9ect
ype: Recreation - <aintenance <odi ication
Pro9ect Description: Proposed <anagement Plan
Pro9ect Location:
he approximate location o the pro9ect can ;e vie=ed in -oogle <aps:https:
===.google.commaps@39.1825322/-106.81249978127585/14@
Counties: Pitkin County/ Colorado
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space
Project code: 2025-0063848 03/04/2025 18:57:11 UTC
3 of 15
▪
▪
▪
▪
S #S National #ildli e Re uges and ish atcheries
Bald C -olden Eagles
<igratory Birds
#etlands
OFFICIA SPECIES IST
his list is provided pursuant to Section 7 o the Endangered Species Act/ and ul ills the
re?uirement or ederal agencies to Bre?uest o the Secretary o the nterior in ormation =hether
any species =hich is listed or proposed to ;e listed may ;e present in the area o a proposed
actionB.
his species list is provided ;y:
estern olorado Ecological Services ield ffice
445 #est -unnison Avenue/ Suite 240
-rand 0unction/ CO 81501-5711
39705 628-7180
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 297CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS296
Project code: 2025-0063848 03/04/2025 18:57:11 UTC
6 of 15
▪
▪
MAMMAS
NA<E S
A
S
Canada Lynx Lyn anaensis
Population: #herever ound in Contiguous .S.
here is final critical ha;itat or this species. Four location does not overlap the critical ha;itat.
Species pro ile: https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies3652
hreatened
-ray #ol anis l p s
Population: CO
No critical ha;itat has ;een designated or this species.
Species pro ile: https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies4488
Experimental
Population/
Non-
Essential
IRS
NA<E S
A
S
<exican Spotted O=l tri oientalis l ia
here is final critical ha;itat or this species. Four location does not overlap the critical ha;itat.
Species pro ile: https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies8196
hreatened
Fello=-;illed Cuckoo oy s a erian s
Population: #estern .S. DPS
here is final critical ha;itat or this species. Four location does not overlap the critical ha;itat.
Species pro ile: https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies3911
hreatened
FISES
NA<E S
A
S
Bonytail !ila elegans
here is final critical ha;itat or this species. Four location does not overlap the critical ha;itat.
his species only needs to ;e considered under the ollo=ing conditions:
#ater depletions in the upper Colorado River ;asin adversely a ect this species and its
critical ha;itat. E ects o =ater depletions must ;e considered even outside o occupied
range.
Species pro ile: https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies1377
Endangered
Colorado Pikeminno= tyhoheil s l i s
Population: #herever ound/ except =here listed as an experimental population
here is final critical ha;itat or this species. Four location does not overlap the critical ha;itat.
his species only needs to ;e considered under the ollo=ing conditions:
#ater depletions in the upper Colorado River ;asin adversely a ect this species and its
critical ha;itat. E ects o =ater depletions must ;e considered even outside o occupied
range.
Species pro ile: https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies3531
Endangered
ump;ack Chu; !ila ypha
here is final critical ha;itat or this species. Four location does not overlap the critical ha;itat.
his species only needs to ;e considered under the ollo=ing conditions:
hreatened
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space
Project code: 2025-0063848 03/04/2025 18:57:11 UTC
5 of 15
1.
ENANERE SPECIES ACT SPECIES
here is a total o 12 threatened/ endangered/ or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should ;e considered in an e ects analysis or your pro9ect and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. or example/ certain ish may appear on the species
list ;ecause a pro9ect could a ect do=nstream species. Note that 4 o these species should ;e
considered only under certain conditions.
PaC does not display listed species or critical ha;itats under the sole 9urisdiction o NOAA
isheries / as S #S does not have the authority to speak on ;ehal o NOAA and the
Department o Commerce.
See the BCritical ha;itatsB section ;elo= or those critical ha;itats that lie =holly or partially
=ithin your pro9ect area under this o iceEs 9urisdiction. Please contact the designated #S o ice
i you have ?uestions.
NOAA isheries/ also kno=n as the National <arine isheries Service 3N< S5/ is an
o ice o the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration =ithin the Department o
Commerce.
1
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 299CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS298
Project code: 2025-0063848 03/04/2025 18:57:11 UTC
8 of 15
1.
2.
3.
USFS NATIONA IIFE REFUE ANS
AN FIS ATCERIES
Any activity proposed on lands managed ;y the National #ildli e Re uge system must undergo a
ECompati;ility DeterminationE conducted ;y the Re uge. Please contact the individual Re uges to
discuss any ?uestions or concerns.
ERE ARE NO RE -E LANDS OR S A
C ER ES #
N FO R PRO0EC
AREA.
A OEN EAES
Bald and -olden Eagles are protected under the Bald and -olden Eagle Protection Act and the
<igratory Bird
reaty Act 3<B
A5 . Any person or organi@ation =ho plans or conducts
activities that may result in impacts to Bald or -olden Eagles/ or their ha;itats/ should ollo=
appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate avoidance and minimi@ation
measures/ as descri;ed in the various links on this page.
he Bald and -olden Eagle Protection Act o 1940.
he <igratory Birds
reaty Act o 1918.
50 C. .R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 .S.C. Sec. 6683a5
here are Bald Eagles andor -olden Eagles in your pro9ect area.
easures for Proactively ini i ing Eagle acts
or in ormation on ho= to ;est avoid and minimi@e distur;ance to nesting ;ald eagles/ please
revie= the National Bald Eagle <anagement -uidelines. Fou may employ the timing and
activity-speci ic distance recommendations in this document =hen designing your pro9ect
activity to avoid and minimi@e eagle impacts. or ;ald eagle in ormation speci ic to Alaska/
please re er to Bald Eagle Nesting and Sensitivity to uman Activity.
he #S does not currently have guidelines or avoiding and minimi@ing distur;ance to nesting
-olden Eagles. or site-speci ic recommendations regarding nesting -olden Eagles/ please
consult =ith the appropriate Regional <igratory Bird O ice or Ecological Services ield O ice.
distur;ance or take o eagles cannot ;e avoided/ an incidental take permit may ;e availa;le to
authori@e any take that results rom/ ;ut is not the purpose o / an other=ise la= ul activity. or
assistance making this determination or Bald Eagles/ visit the Do Need A Permit
ool. or
assistance making this determination or golden eagles/ please consult =ith the appropriate
Regional <igratory Bird O ice or Ecological Services ield O ice.
Ensure our Eagle ist is !ccurate and o lete
your pro9ect area is in a poorly surveyed area in PaC/ your list may not ;e complete and you
may need to rely on other resources to determine =hat species may ;e present 3e.g. your local
#S ield o ice/ state surveys/ your o=n surveys5. Please revie= the Supplemental n ormation
2
1
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space
Project code: 2025-0063848 03/04/2025 18:57:11 UTC
7 of 15
▪
▪
NA<E S
A
S
#ater depletions in the upper Colorado River ;asin adversely a ect this species and its
critical ha;itat. E ects o =ater depletions must ;e considered even outside o occupied
range.
Species pro ile: https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies3930
Ra@or;ack Sucker #yra hen tean s
here is final critical ha;itat or this species. Four location does not overlap the critical ha;itat.
his species only needs to ;e considered under the ollo=ing conditions:
#ater depletions in the upper Colorado River ;asin adversely a ect this species and its
critical ha;itat. E ects o =ater depletions must ;e considered even outside o occupied
range.
Species pro ile: https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies530
Endangered
INSECTS
NA<E S
A
S
<onarch Butter ly $ana s pleipp s
here is roosed critical ha;itat or this species. Four location does not overlap the critical
ha;itat.
Species pro ile: https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies9743
Proposed
hreatened
Silverspot peyeria no%o is no%o is
No critical ha;itat has ;een designated or this species.
Species pro ile: https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies2813
hreatened
SuckleyEs Cuckoo Bum;le Bee o s s %leyi
Population:
No critical ha;itat has ;een designated or this species.
Species pro ile: https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies10885
Proposed
Endangered
FOERIN PANTS
NA<E S
A
S
te LadiesE-tresses piranthes il vialis
No critical ha;itat has ;een designated or this species.
Species pro ile: https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies2159
hreatened
CRITICA AITATS
ERE ARE NO CR
CAL AB
A
S #
N FO R PRO0EC
AREA NDER
S O CEES
0 R SD C
ON.
FO ARE S
LL REG RED
O DE
ER< NE FO R PRO0EC
3S5 <AF A'E E EC
S ON ALL
ABO'E L S
ED SPEC ES.
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 301CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS300
Project code: 2025-0063848 03/04/2025 18:57:11 UTC
10 of 15
▪
▪
▪
▪
1.
2.
3.
SPEC ES 0AN EB <AR APR <AF 0 N 0 L A -SEP OC
NO' DEC
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
'ulnera;le
-olden Eagle
Non-BCC
'ulnera;le
Additional in ormation can ;e ound using the ollo=ing links:
Eagle <anagement https:===. =s.govprogrameagle-management
<easures or avoiding and minimi@ing impacts to ;irds https:===. =s.govli;rary
collectionsavoiding-and-minimi@ing-incidental-take-migratory-;irds
Nation=ide avoidance and minimi@ation measures or ;irds https:===. =s.govsites
de ault ilesdocumentsnation=ide-standard-conservation-measures.pd
Supplemental n ormation or <igratory Birds and Eagles in PaC https:===. =s.gov
mediasupplemental-in ormation-migratory-;irds-and-;ald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-
pro9ect-action
MIRATOR IRS
he <igratory Bird
reaty Act 3<B
A5 prohi;its the take 3including killing/ capturing/ selling/
trading/ and transport5 o protected migratory ;ird species =ithout prior authori@ation ;y the
Department o nterior .S. ish and #ildli e Service 3Service5.
he incidental take o migratory
;irds is the in9ury or death o ;irds that results rom/ ;ut is not the purpose/ o an activity.
he
Service interprets the <B
A to prohi;it incidental take.
he <igratory Birds
reaty Act o 1918.
he Bald and -olden Eagle Protection Act o 1940.
50 C. .R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 .S.C. Sec. 6683a5
or guidance on =hen to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimi@ation measures
to reduce impacts to migratory ;irds on your list/ see the BPro;a;ility o Presence SummaryB
;elo= to see =hen these ;irds are most likely to ;e present and ;reeding in your pro9ect area.
NA<E
BREED N-
SEASON
Bald Eagle 'aliaeet s le oephal s
his is not a Bird o Conservation Concern 3BCC5 in this area/ ;ut =arrants attention
;ecause o the Eagle Act or or potential suscepti;ilities in o shore areas rom certain types
o development or activities.
https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies1626
Breeds Dec 1 to
Aug 31
1
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space
Project code: 2025-0063848 03/04/2025 18:57:11 UTC
of 15
on <igratory Birds and Eagles/ to help you properly interpret the report or your speci ied
location/ including determining i there is su icient data to ensure your list is accurate.
or guidance on =hen to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimi@ation measures
to reduce impacts to ;ald or golden eagles on your list/ see the BPro;a;ility o Presence
SummaryB ;elo= to see =hen these ;ald or golden eagles are most likely to ;e present and
;reeding in your pro9ect area.
NA<E
BREED N-
SEASON
Bald Eagle 'aliaeet s le oephal s
his is not a Bird o Conservation Concern 3BCC5 in this area/ ;ut =arrants attention
;ecause o the Eagle Act or or potential suscepti;ilities in o shore areas rom certain types
o development or activities.
https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies1626
Breeds Dec 1 to
Aug 31
-olden Eagle ila hrysaetos
his is not a Bird o Conservation Concern 3BCC5 in this area/ ;ut =arrants attention
;ecause o the Eagle Act or or potential suscepti;ilities in o shore areas rom certain types
o development or activities.
https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies1680
Breeds Dec 1 to
Aug 31
PROAIIT OF PRESENCE SUMMAR
he graphs ;elo= provide our ;est understanding o =hen ;irds o concern are most likely to ;e
present in your pro9ect area.
his in ormation can ;e used to tailor and schedule your pro9ect
activities to avoid or minimi@e impacts to ;irds. Please make sure you read BSupplemental
n ormation on <igratory Birds and EaglesB/ speci ically the AG section titled BProper
nterpretation and se o Four <igratory Bird ReportB ;e ore using or attempting to interpret
this report.
Probability of Presence 3 5
-reen ;arsH the ;irdEs relative pro;a;ility o presence in the 10km grid cell3s5 your pro9ect
overlaps during that =eek o the year.
Breeding Season 3 5
Fello= ;arsH li;eral estimate o the time rame inside =hich the ;ird ;reeds across its entire
range.
Survey Effort 3 5
'ertical ;lack linesH the num;er o surveys per ormed or that species in the 10km grid cell3s5
your pro9ect area overlaps.
No Data 3 5
A =eek is marked as having no data i there =ere no survey events or that =eek.
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 303CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS302
Project code: 2025-0063848 03/04/2025 18:57:11 UTC
12 of 15
NA<E
BREED N-
SEASON
'irginiaEs #ar;ler Leiothlypis virginiae
his is a Bird o Conservation Concern 3BCC5 throughout its range in the continental SA
and Alaska.
https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies9441
Breeds <ay 1
to 0ul 31
PROAIIT OF PRESENCE SUMMAR
he graphs ;elo= provide our ;est understanding o =hen ;irds o concern are most likely to ;e
present in your pro9ect area.
his in ormation can ;e used to tailor and schedule your pro9ect
activities to avoid or minimi@e impacts to ;irds. Please make sure you read BSupplemental
n ormation on <igratory Birds and EaglesB/ speci ically the AG section titled BProper
nterpretation and se o Four <igratory Bird ReportB ;e ore using or attempting to interpret
this report.
Probability of Presence 3 5
-reen ;arsH the ;irdEs relative pro;a;ility o presence in the 10km grid cell3s5 your pro9ect
overlaps during that =eek o the year.
Breeding Season 3 5
Fello= ;arsH li;eral estimate o the time rame inside =hich the ;ird ;reeds across its entire
range.
Survey Effort 3 5
'ertical ;lack linesH the num;er o surveys per ormed or that species in the 10km grid cell3s5
your pro9ect area overlaps.
No Data 3 5
A =eek is marked as having no data i there =ere no survey events or that =eek.
SPEC ES 0AN EB <AR APR <AF 0 N 0 L A -SEP OC
NO' DEC
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
'ulnera;le
Black Rosy- inch
BCC Range=ide
3CON5
Black S=i t
BCC Range=ide
3CON5
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space
Project code: 2025-0063848 03/04/2025 18:57:11 UTC
11 of 15
NA<E
BREED N-
SEASON
Black Rosy- inch Le ostite atrata
his is a Bird o Conservation Concern 3BCC5 throughout its range in the continental SA
and Alaska.
https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies9460
Breeds 0un 15
to Aug 31
Black S=i t ypseloies niger
his is a Bird o Conservation Concern 3BCC5 throughout its range in the continental SA
and Alaska.
https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies8878
Breeds 0un 15
to Sep 10
Broad-tailed umming;ird elasphor s platyer s
his is a Bird o Conservation Concern 3BCC5 throughout its range in the continental SA
and Alaska.
https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies11935
Breeds <ay 25
to Aug 21
Bro=n-capped Rosy- inch Le ostite a stralis
his is a Bird o Conservation Concern 3BCC5 throughout its range in the continental SA
and Alaska.
https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies9461
Breeds 0un 15
to Sep 15
CassinEs inch 'ae orho s assinii
his is a Bird o Conservation Concern 3BCC5 throughout its range in the continental SA
and Alaska.
https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies9462
Breeds <ay 15
to 0ul 15
ClarkEs Nutcracker ( iraga ol iana
his is a Bird o Conservation Concern 3BCC5 only in particular Bird Conservation Regions
3BCRs5 in the continental SA
https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies9421
Breeds 0an 15
to 0ul 15
Evening -ros;eak oothra stes vespertin s
his is a Bird o Conservation Concern 3BCC5 throughout its range in the continental SA
and Alaska.
https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies9465
Breeds <ay 15
to Aug 10
-olden Eagle ila hrysaetos
his is not a Bird o Conservation Concern 3BCC5 in this area/ ;ut =arrants attention
;ecause o the Eagle Act or or potential suscepti;ilities in o shore areas rom certain types
o development or activities.
https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies1680
Breeds Dec 1 to
Aug 31
Le=isEs #oodpecker elanerpes le)is
his is a Bird o Conservation Concern 3BCC5 throughout its range in the continental SA
and Alaska.
https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies9408
Breeds Apr 20
to Sep 30
Olive-sided lycatcher ontop s ooperi
his is a Bird o Conservation Concern 3BCC5 throughout its range in the continental SA
and Alaska.
https:ecos. =s.govecpspecies3914
Breeds <ay 20
to Aug 31
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 305CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS304
Project code: 2025-0063848 03/04/2025 18:57:11 UTC
14 of 15
▪
or more in ormation please contact the Regulatory Program o the local .S. Army Corps o
Engineers District.
Please note that the N# data ;eing sho=n may ;e out o date. #e are currently =orking to
update our N# data set. #e recommend you veri y these results =ith a site visit to determine
the actual extent o =etlands on site.
R 'ER NE
R3 B
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space
Project code: 2025-0063848 03/04/2025 18:57:11 UTC
13 of 15
▪
▪
▪
▪
Broad-tailed
umming;ird
BCC Range=ide
3CON5
Bro=n-capped
Rosy- inch
BCC Range=ide
3CON5
CassinEs inch
BCC Range=ide
3CON5
ClarkEs Nutcracker
BCC - BCR
Evening -ros;eak
BCC Range=ide
3CON5
-olden Eagle
Non-BCC
'ulnera;le
Le=isEs
#oodpecker
BCC Range=ide
3CON5
Olive-sided
lycatcher
BCC Range=ide
3CON5
'irginiaEs #ar;ler
BCC Range=ide
3CON5
Additional in ormation can ;e ound using the ollo=ing links:
Eagle <anagement https:===. =s.govprogrameagle-management
<easures or avoiding and minimi@ing impacts to ;irds https:===. =s.govli;rary
collectionsavoiding-and-minimi@ing-incidental-take-migratory-;irds
Nation=ide avoidance and minimi@ation measures or ;irds
Supplemental n ormation or <igratory Birds and Eagles in PaC https:===. =s.gov
mediasupplemental-in ormation-migratory-;irds-and-;ald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-
pro9ect-action
ETANS
mpacts to N# =etlands and other a?uatic ha;itats may ;e su;9ect to regulation under Section
404 o the Clean #ater Act/ or other State ederal statutes.
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 307CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS306
Project code: 2025-0063848 03/04/2025 18:57:11 UTC
15 of 15
IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency: Peak Ecological Services LLC
Name: Rea Orthner
Address: 301 Boulder Canyon Drive - PO Box 827
City: Nederland
State: CO
Zip: 80466
Email rea@peakecological.com
Phone: 7202891665
Natural Resource Baseline Report – Ute Cemetery Open Space
Appendix U: 2024 Natural Resource Baseline Report
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 309CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS308
Tatana sto
al sso
ates n
"
!!!
February 202
"ohn *piess
City of Aspen
'arks and &pen *pace
2 Rio rande 'lace
Aspen, C&
ro,e%t te Cemeter: reser7ation lan
Cit: of s2en Contra%t
ear "ohn,
Tatanka Historical Associates !nc. has completed its work at Ute Cemetery in Aspen, including
field reconnaissance, archival research, and the drafting of this 'reservation 'lan. This updates
the original plan that ! prepared in 200 . !t was also a good opportunity to look at the restoration
and interpretation work done in the early 2000s to see how it is holding up today.
'lease contact me if you have any questions about the information presented herein. And thank
you for the opportunity to work on this wonderful site again.
*incerely,
Ron *ladek
'resident
Historic Preservation Plan
UTE CEMETERY
Aspen, Colorado
completed byatana
i!torica !!ociate! Inc
'.&. Box 0
Fort Collins, C& 022
tatankaverinet.com
www.tatankahistorical.com
0..
City of Aspen Contract 202-0
February 202
Appendix V: 2024 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 311CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS310
1
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
te Ceete eseaton lan
The Condition of the Aspen cemetery is a disgrace to the city.It reflects small credit upon
the community that the city of our dead should be so sadly neglected.No fence around it,
it has become the pasture ground of every species of animal,the burro,cow and stray
horse finding the grass in that neighborhood especially to their taste.In time all must
die,and the major portion of our citizens will lie beneath the sod of our cemetery.All the
nobler sensibilities of men and women are shocked at such light treatment and gross
negligence of the last resting place of many respected and loved citizens.The authorities
should take some early action in the premises,and all our lodges should assist in this
work of improvement suggested by the sense of love no less than that of municipal
enterprise and decency.
Aspen Daily Chronicle
roect acroun
Ute Cemetery is located in the southeast area of Aspen and is one of the city’s most important
early historic sites. !ts period of significance stretches from the mining camp days of the 0s
through the Kquiet yearsL of the 20s. Burials there predominantly extended from 0
through 0 very few occurred over the following decades. uring the decades following
the end of .orld .ar !!, as Aspen began to experience its reawakening as a ski resort and
center of culture, the inactive and unmaintained cemetery was sub9ected to vandalism and
deterioration. By the end of the 20th century, city officials and local preservation advocates
were moving to have the cemetery studied, landmarked, and rehabilitated, not for new use but
as a historic site.
As the newspaper editorial from above indicates, the maintenance of Ute Cemetery has
been a problem since its early days, and it continued to be a concern a century later. The
cemetery was always an unmanaged graveyard, where burials were randomly placed, no
landscaping was established to beautify the site other than the planting of flowers on graves,
and its use was not regulated in any way. Although a shed, possibly for caretaking, was built
in the cemetery’s northwest corner during the site’s period of intensive use, it does not appear
to have resulted in ongoing management and maintenance. !n addition, the rolling terrain could
not be accessed beyond its early years by horse-drawn wagons or carriages, or by early motor
vehicles. This forced mourners, visitors and funeral processions to walk into the site. espite
its drawbacks, Ute Cemetery remained the only burial ground in Aspen throughout the 0s.
The first burial at Ute Cemetery took place in the summer of 0, when a recent arrival died
of what was termed Kmountain fever.L %eeding a place to bury the body, members of the mining
camp chose an empty piece of ground where Ute !ndians had been seen camping not long
before. *tarting in the late 0s, the cemetery began to be superseded by two planned park-
like cemeteries. Aspen rove Cemetery founded in and Red Butte Cemetery founded
in were established by local cemetery associations in response to the poor condition of
Ute Cemetery. The Catholic church and local fraternal lodges secured designated areas within
the cemeteries that were set aside for their members.
Table of Contents
'ro9ect Background
*ite #ocation and Access
*ite Features, Condition and Treatment
The Cemetery ntrance
The 'erimeter Fencing
The rounds and .alking 'aths
The raves 0
The *hed Ruins 2
Considerations for the Future 2
uiding Concepts 2
*ite Approach and ntry 2
'arking and Circulation 2
'erimeter Fencing 0
*helter and Amenities 0
Handicapped Access 0
&versight and *ecurity 0
'lantings on the *ite
Burial Area $aintenance
$aterials Restoration
Future Burials
ocumentation and !nterpretation
Records and ocumentation
*ite !nterpretation
Appendix V: 2024 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 313CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS312
3
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
$unicipal funds covered the cost of Ute Cemetery’s first preservation plan, which was
completed in %ovember 200 by Tatanka Historical Associates, which brought landscape
architects BHA esign and monument fabricator and repair shop %orman’s $emorials into the
pro9ect as sub-consultants. The completed plan provided the City of Aspen with documentation
and analysis of the cemetery’s condition, thoughts on future management and interpretation,
landscape recommendations, and detailed guidance for the repair of damaged cultural
resources. *everal volunteer work days took place in 2002 and 200 to remove dead
vegetation from the site and clear fallen debris from the pathways, and to remove plants that
were negatively impacting the gravemarkers.
!n 2002, the City secured a grant from the Colorado *tate Historical Fund that helped cover the
cost of stonework restoration. ravestones that needed intensive work were transported to a
shop in reeley, where they were cleaned and carefully repaired before being returned to the
cemetery. &thers were secured on their base stones and cleaned in the field. This work was
done in time for a rededication ceremony that took place on $emorial ay in 200. Those in
attendance were reminded that Aspen’s annual ecoration ay ceremonies had been held at
Ute Cemetery throughout the 0s.
.ork at the site was not yet complete. &ver the following months, two large, inscribed boulders
were placed at the cemetery’s entrance, providing the names of all the known burials. Fencing
was also installed around the cemetery’s perimeter, including a new entry gateway built by a
local stonemason. Finally, an interpretive brochure was developed to aid the public in its
understanding and appreciation of the site’s history, and to gain support for Ute Cemetery’s
ongoing preservation and maintenance. Recognizing the quality of the work that was done, in
200 the consulting team received state and national honor awards from the Colorado chapter
and national headquarters of the American *ociety of #andscape Architects.
The story of Ute Cemetery continues to appear in the media from time to time, and it is visited
periodically by outdoor enthusiasts who en9oy the natural setting and others with an interest in
history and funerary art. %o burials have taken place there since the early 0s and whether
any descendants of the deceased visit the graves of their loved ones is uncertain. Tours of
the site are provided on occasion by local commercial guides and the Aspen Historical *ociety.
uring the winter months, the cemetery is buried in a deep blanket of snow and is accessible
only to those willing to walk or ski into the site.
!n 202, the City of Aspen determined that the time had come to update the preservation plan
for Ute Cemetery. Ron *ladek was engaged to revisit the site and provide an update to the
work he completed two decades earlier. This report is the result of the fieldwork, which involved
a reconnaissance of the cemetery. The pro9ect also called for expanded documentation of the
site’s history and of the individuals who are buried there, updating wherever possible the
information that was collected years earlier using archival materials that have become available
over the past twenty years. A separate historical report accompanies this preservation plan.
The following information is designed to serve as a guidebook for future work at the cemetery.
Copies should be distributed to City staff who might be involved with the site in the future. !n
addition, contractors engaged to work on the property should be briefed in advance, and as
appropriate to their tasks, on the proper care of the cemetery and its resources.
2
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
#aid out in a grid pattern with established roadways along with defined blocks and burial plots,
and with management committees and regulations in place, the new cemeteries were preferred
by anyone wanting to bury their loved one in a more maintained setting. The roadways at these
sites also allowed mourners and visitors to access the cemeteries in vehicles. Ute Cemetery,
on the other hand, remained open to all, charged no fees, was evidently not maintained on a
regular basis, and had no guidelines that needed to be followed. These characteristics
apparently kept the unregulated burial ground in use through the 20s, with the lack of fees
perhaps being the most attractive feature. *ome families might have had their loved ones’
bodies disinterred and moved to Aspen rove or Red Butte once they were established, a
process that was not uncommon at the time, and others were moved away from Aspen.
By the post-.orld .ar !! decades, many of Ute Cemetery’s gravemarkers had deteriorated
and related features such as fencing had fallen into disrepair. *ome monuments were stolen
and most of those that remained ended up being toppled by vandals. !n "uly 2, the s#en
imes reported that thirty-three gravemarkers had been pushed over in a single incident of
vandalism, causing some to break into pieces and leaving few standing upright. .hile some
might have been righted, no ma9or action appears to have been taken to rectify the situation,
perhaps because none of the dead had family living in the area. As the years passed, the open
cemetery landscape of the late 00s gave way to a site that was increasingly dominated by
native grasses, shrubs and trees. The cemetery was being reclaimed by forest, primarily an
abundance of Aspen trees, serviceberry bushes, and a few evergreens that eventually grew to
massive size. The condition of Ute Cemetery’s cultural features continued to deteriorate.
!n , the Aspen Historical *ociety organized a volunteer cleanup of the cemetery, the first
effort to address its poor condition. That apparently did not involve repairs to the broken
stonework. A decade later, in , an intern from Harvard University’s raduate *chool of
esign by the name of -inita *idhu produced a study for the City of Aspen titled e#ort on t e
Conitions of t e Cemeteries of t e Cit* of s#en )it ecommenations for
m#rovements.
At Ute Cemetery, she completed a reconnaissance survey of the gravemarkers. This was the
first time anyone had assembled detailed information from the inscriptions and took a close
look at the condition of the stonework, woodwork, metalwork, and other features. *idhu’s report
generated interest among City of Aspen staff. !n %ovember , the s#en
ai * e)s
informed its readers that the City’s historic preservation officer, Amy uthrie, was looking for
funding and experts to complete a professional restoration study at Ute Cemetery. By that
time, the City of Aspen owned the site.
*everal years passed before work began in earnest at the cemetery. !n 200 , the City of Aspen
decided that it was time to take action to secure Ute Cemetery by getting the site documented
and landmarked, developing a plan to restore its deteriorated and broken burial features, gently
and selectively addressing its overgrown landscape, providing clear walking paths for visitors,
and developing interpretive materials. Ron *ladek of Tatanka Historical Associates was
engaged to manage the pro9ect in collaboration with staff from the City of Aspen’s Community
evelopment epartment and 'arks &pen *pace epartment. The cemetery was formally
designated to the Colorado *tate Register of Historic 'roperties in late 200 and to the %ational
Register of Historic 'laces in the spring of 2002. These acts opened the door to additional
funding for work at the site.
Appendix V: 2024 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 315CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS314
5
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
ocat'o+ of Ute Cemetery
U* * Aspen *pecial $ap, *urveyed
ocat'o+ of Ute Cemetery, C'rcle" o+ the U--er '%ht
Bird’s ye -iew of Aspen,
4
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
ite ocation an cce!!
From the intersection of &riginal *treet and Cooper Avenue in downtown Aspen, Ute Cemetery
is located one-third of a mile to the southeast. !t is situated on rolling ground at the base of
ast Aspen $ountain and south of the Roaring Fork River. Traveling south along &riginal
*treet, the route to the site turns to the southeast onto Ute Avenue and continues a short
distance of one-quarter mile until it reaches a small parking pullout along the north side of the
street. From the parking area, visitors cross a paved walking and biking trail also a route to
the site to reach the entry gate for Ute Cemetery.
Ute Cemetery at o4er Ce+ter
U* * Aspen Topographic $ap, 20
Historic maps of Aspen from the late 00s show that the cemetery was located 9ust beyond
the developed town core, 9ust east of the Argentum-"uniata $ine. &ne access to the site was
by way of a track that led to the southeast from the end of Ute Avenue, which was shorter than
it is today. An bird’s eye view of Aspen shows an entrance from the north, through an
area that is now developed with single-family homes. Any historic features that might have
been associated with entrances at these locations are long gone. Today the site is primarily
entered from the location along Ute Avenue, although an opening in the east fence along the
ad9acent Ute 'ark boundary also permits access.
Appendix V: 2024 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 317CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS316
7
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
Ci7ilians onument Ci7il "ar !eterans onument
+scr' e" emor'al Boul"ers at the a'+ E+tra+ce
Poleou+te" e%ulat'o+s '%+ a+" Brochure Bo5
Condition and Treatment of the ntr:8a: Features J !nspection of the features described
above found that in general they are in good condition. The masonry on the gateway is holding
up reasonably well after two decades of exposure, with no evidence found that it requires
immediate attention. .hite efflorescence from the bricks is starting to weep. *ome of this is
extending onto the face of the inscribed sandstone block, which could be lightly cleaned from
time to time. At some point in the next decade or two, the masonry might also need to be
tuckpointed in select locations where the grout begins to fail.
6
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
ite eature! onition an reatment
he Cemetery E+tra+ce The entrance to the cemetery along Ute Avenue is marked by
a masonry gateway that was installed in the early 2000s. This is composed of two features
that stand in proximity to one another with a gap of about four feet between them, large enough
to allow visitors to walk in and out of the site. &n the southeast is an arched brick monument
wall that is flanked by squared brick pillars and capped with sandstone blocks. !ts face holds
an inscribed block of sandstone that reads KUT C $ T R/, 0.L *everal feet to the
northwest is a single squared brick pillar with a sandstone cap. The masonry on these features
match, tying them visually into a single gateway unit. They are not connected by a traditional
metal gate that can be closed, but instead mark the cemetery’s primary entrance.
he a'+ E+try at Ute Cemetery
"ust beyond the gateway, visitors encounter two large, inscribed granite boulders that flank the
walking path. These were placed there in the early 2000s to record the names of everyone
known to have been buried in Ute Cemetery since many of the graves are unmarked. !t was
anticipated that names would be added to the monuments as future research revealed other
burials. &ne of the boulders lists the names of Civil .ar veterans and the other provides a list
of civilians, dividing them into marked and unmarked graves.
A signpost stands a short distance down the walking path where it forks to the east and west.
This was also installed in the early 2000s. The metal sign welcomes visitors to the cemetery
and provides a list of regulations and requests. "ust below the sign is a wood box used to hold
interpretive brochures. %o other signage or interpretive material is available beyond that point.
Appendix V: 2024 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 319CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS318
9
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
he rou+"s a+" al('+% Paths As briefly mentioned above, the ground throughout
the site, except along the pathways, is covered with a carpet of natural grass along with
serviceberries and other shrubs. uring the summer months these plants obscure some of the
low-lying cultural features from view. !n addition, the site rests within an extensive stand of
Aspen trees that is continuing to dominate the cemetery landscape. The small number of
evergreens are mature and quite large. Trees, or parts of them, have periodically fallen and
caused some damage to gravemarkers and fencing. 'erennial flowers, primarily irises, mark
the locations of both identified and unidentified graves. From spring through fall, the cemetery
is ornamented with a rich, verdant coat of vegetation. uring the colder months, from
approximately %ovember through April, it is buried in a deep bed of snow that covers most of
the gravestones and makes the site inaccessible other than on foot.
A network of walking paths snakes its way through the cemetery, intersecting and branching
off at various locations. $ost of these paths were formed naturally by decades of visitation. A
few stretches were developed or slightly improved in the early 2000s to provide better access
to the graves and to reduce erosion. %one are marked by any signage, so visitors simply make
their way through the property, experiencing the landscape and encountering graves along the
way. The paths are narrow and unpaved and are lined by natural vegetation. The topography
rises and falls, and the paths make their way through this terrain. Because of the topography
and density of vegetative growth, many of the graves are not encountered until the visitor is
suddenly upon them.
E5am-les of a+"sca-e a+" al('+% Paths '+ the Cemetery
Condition and Treatment of the "al-in) aths J Access into and through Ute Cemetery
has always been on foot, or perhaps minimally by horse-drawn wagon in the early days before
the forest began to reclaim the site. The walking paths appear to date back many decades,
probably over a century, and developed through natural use. .hen restoration work began in
the early 2000s, many of these paths were obstructed by vegetation or strewn with fallen
branches. 'runing and removal of dead material cleared the existing paths, and a small
number of new ones were developed to direct foot traffic through the site. %o efforts were
made to pave or otherwise greatly improve the pathways. !nspection of the network today
8
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
The inscribed granite monument boulders are also holding up well, although with their slanted
faces they could use a cleaning. The one on the east that holds the names of Civil .ar
veterans has become particularly soiled. This is typically caused by sap falling from the trees
and the subsequent adhesion of dirt.
The signpost is standing firmly upright, and the printed metal sign is in good condition. The
cemetery regulations posted there remain relevant and the only one that might be updated is
that regarding gravestone rubbing. That could be replaced with a statement that photography
is preferable to taking gravestone rubbings not that rubbing should be disallowed altogether,
but it’s done less frequently now that digital photography has improved and become so
pervasive. Below the sign, the brochure box was empty and has been observed to be empty
on prior visits to the site over the past two decades. !t is unclear whether the City of Aspen has
been stocking the box with brochures or if it is left empty all the time.
he Per'meter
e+c'+% The cemetery frontage along Ute Avenue and the walking
biking
path is marked by a wood picket fence that extends to the southeast and northwest. !nstalled
in the early 2000s, this provides a clear delineation of the site’s boundary and forces visitors to
use the main entrance. 'ost and rail fencing is present along the east property line where the
cemetery borders Ute 'ark. $inimal fencing is found along the north and west boundaries,
primarily some metal fencing installed by ad9acent homeowners.
Fen%in) lon) the te 7e Fronta)e Fen%in) lon) the ast ro2ert: ine
Condition and Treatment of Fen%in)J !nspection of the fencing found that the woodwork is
in relatively good condition but will require attention from time to time to secure or even replace
posts, pickets and rails that have loosened, fallen, or that need to be replaced. This should be
done each spring to address weathering and winter damage and prepare the site for increased
summer visitation. ncroachment into the cemetery grounds from the ad9acent single-family
homes will have to be guarded against since the site’s boundaries on the north and west are
not clearly marked. Because the cemetery is also on higher ground, erosion down into the
residential properties might also make the cemetery’s property lines become less obvious.
Appendix V: 2024 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 321CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS320
11
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
$any of the graves are marked by the presence of clusters of planted irises. &thers involve
shallow depressions that indicate where caskets have collapsed and the ground above
subsided. *ome unmarked graves are bordered by river cobble or flagstone coping. Fence
enclosures are constructed of iron or wood. Footstones, sometimes buried 9ust beneath the
surface of the ground, might be found in locations where their accompanying headstones are
missing. These are typically inscribed on one face with the initials of the deceased, providing
a clue to who is buried there. !ndividuals or families who could not afford the cost of a stone or
metal gravemarker often got by with an engraved wood tablet or cross. These have been
sub9ect to theft and deterioration, with sun exposure and precipitation erasing the inscriptions
within a century or less. .hile wood gravemarkers are likely to have been present at Ute
Cemetery, 9ust one remains there today because it is protected beneath a tree canopy.
U+mar(e" ra3es Bor"ere" y '3er Co le
%ote that the one on the right is crossed by a walking path.
U+mar(e" ra3es Bor"ere" y to+e Co-'+%
10
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
found that it remains in good walkable condition and has retained its natural appearance. !t
will need attention from time to time to remove fallen debris, keep it clear of vegetative growth,
and address erosion issues as they emerge.
he ra3es Fieldwork and archival research indicate that at least people, and possibly
as many as 200, are buried in Ute Cemetery. *eventy-eight of those graves are marked by
stonework or metalwork, and most of those identify the occupants. 'ublished obituaries identify
others who are buried there, although the locations of their graves within the site are no longer
known. .hen the cemetery was last documented in 200 , evidence was found of at least 0
unmarked graves. Brief biographical details about the individuals buried at Ute Cemetery were
provided in the early 2000s. Additional research is being completed using archival sources
that were not available at that time. The expanded biographies appear in a separate report
that accompanies this preservation plan.
The graves are scattered throughout Ute Cemetery’s grounds, most of them in what appear to
be random locations. ifferent from planned cemeteries that were laid out in accordance with
a design, there are no defined blocks and burial plots. %o early map of the site appears to
have survived to the present day, so the identities of the many unmarked burials will remain
unknown. The only evidence of planning involved twenty-nine graves of Civil .ar veterans
who were buried in two long parallel rows in the southeast area of the cemetery. Rather than
being aligned to the cardinal compass points, many of the graves in Ute Cemetery, along with
associated features such as burial plot fencing, are oriented toward the northwest. An
explanation for this is that the site sits slightly higher than Aspen’s developed core and during
the cemetery’s early decades, before the landscape became overgrown with vegetation,
visitors had an open view of the city.
C'3'l ar etera+s ra3es l'%+e" '+ 4o o4s
Appendix V: 2024 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 323CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS322
13
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
"illiam ordan Fannie B iatt
+"'3'"ual ra+'te ra3emar(ers
$ost of the headstones in the cemetery mark the locations of individual burials. However, two
of the large granite markers are inscribed with the names of more than one person. !n these
cases, each time a family member died their name and dates of birth and death were added to
the marker. This required removal of the headstone to a monument shop, where the work was
done under controlled conditions.
or)an Famil: lot "alsh Famil: lot
ra+'te
am'ly ar(ers '+ Ute Cemetery
*ome of the white marble markers on civilian graves might have originated from the /ule
marble quarry in the nearby .est lk $ountains. .hile these were sometimes mounted into
or atop locally-quarried sandstone bases, many were placed upright with their lower halves
12
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
Typical of most western cemeteries, the gravestones at Ute Cemetery were predominantly
fabricated from granite and marble. Beyond the initial settlement period, and especially once
rail service was established to Aspen, commercially available gravemarkers could be
purchased from regional monument companies in places such as enver, Colorado *prings,
'ueblo and rand "unction. &r they could be ordered through national mail order catalogues.
The *ears, Roebuck Co. catalogue, for example, offered a selection of monuments in a
variety of styles and at various price points. %o matter their origin, commercially produced
gravemarkers were inscribed to order and then shipped to Aspen by rail.
The small number of granite markers at Ute Cemetery are grey in color and may have been
quarried from the area around *alida, Colorado. #arger ones are usually mounted atop sturdy
granite base stones. They are harder to carve and more expensive to fabricate and ship. A
very heavy and durable stone, weighing about 2 pounds per square foot, granite typically
resists many forms of damage. These stones, even small ones, can weigh hundreds of pounds
and prove to be difficult to move, although repeated frost-thaw cycles can cause them to slide
off their bases. ven if toppled, they rarely break although they can suffer from chips on the
corners and scratches on their inscribed faces. ranite markers will last for hundreds of years
with little wear, and their inscriptions will remain readable for generations.
or"a+
am'ly ra+'te o+ume+t
Appendix V: 2024 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 325CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS324
15
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
At 0 pounds per square foot, marble is softer and lighter than granite. !t is also less
expensive because it is easier to carve and costs less to quarry and ship. $any of these stones
exhibit simple, inexpensive designs that were affordable for the average family. Because it is
more malleable to the carver’s chisel, marble can also be shaped to include fine inscriptions, a
variety of ornamental features, and even sculptural designs. Ute Cemetery holds several
commercially-produced marble gravestones ranging in color from white to dark gray. Because
of marble’s mineral characteristics, these are susceptible to physical damage from toppling or
vandalism, and to environmental damage caused by several factors. Forms include upright
tablets, slant markers, pedestals, and two obelisks. *everal footstones are present. &thers
are likely to be obscured by vegetation or have sunk into the ground and are no longer visible.
eor)e !o)el i)non heda-er
rthur Benett lasser da Chatfield
U-r'%ht ar le a lets
14
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
buried in the ground. &thers simply rest on the surface. *crap granite was also an option, and
one gravemarker of that type is found in the cemetery. Families that chose to use scrap stone
either inscribed them themselves or had a local stonemason do the work. Among families with
limited means, scrap stone and wood was a preferred option for low-cost gravemarkers.
l$ers
cra- to+e ra3emar(ers '+ar le a+" ra+'te
lsie Calli%otte
Appendix V: 2024 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 327CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS326
17
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
ndre8 Baldrid)e ettie e7itt
ohn arle:ohn dair
ult'Part ar le Pe"estals, ost o+ a+"sto+e Bases
16
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
"alter Burt Freddie 7ren
U-r'%ht ar le a lets
ac.uel'+e Pe+7
U-r'%ht ar le a let 4'th lee-'+% am ,a+"sto+e Base
Appendix V: 2024 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 329CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS328
19
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
u)h it%hell ohn C i$son
ult'Part ar le el's(s,a+"sto+e Bases
E+%ra3e" ar le Bloc(ar(er for oh+ homas
18
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
4oPart ar le Pe"estal for ac.uel'+e am'so+, o+ a+"sto+e Base
ar le la+t ar(ers for osea+ a+" ottfr'e" ruse
Appendix V: 2024 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 331CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS330
21
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
"illiam ti)a Front "illiam ti)a ear
E5am-le of a etera+8s to+e that 4as e-a're" '+ the Early 2000s
&ne metal gravemarker is found on the site. Fabricated of zinc, it was custom ordered and
cast in a sand mold. The primary manufacturer of zinc markers was the $onumental Bronze
Company of Bridgeport, Connecticut, which operated from to . $arketed under the
term Kwhite bronze,L it was promoted as an attractive option because the monuments were
durable, did not rust, and were less expensive than marble or granite. %ever widely accepted
by the public, zinc markers are present in cemeteries in limited numbers and are viewed as
something of an oddity. True to the marketing claims, the zinc does not rust or stain, and after
more than a century of exposure to the elements the monument in Ute Cemetery is in
remarkably good condition. Although some of its seams have separated, this is typical and
unlikely to result in further deterioration that needs to be addressed.
'+c ra3emar(er for 'll'am ar+er
20
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
Thirty-three of the marked graves in Ute Cemetery contain the remains of Civil .ar veterans,
twenty-nine of them aligned in two long rows see page 0. The other four are in scattered
locations across the site. Four additional veterans are known to be buried there in unmarked
graves, bringing the total number to thirty-seven. All of the white marble military markers are
standard-issue tablets provided by the federal government and shipped to Aspen by rail, where
most were set into slotted sandstone bases. By tradition, they include the veterans’ names,
officers’ ranks, and the military units in which they served. These limited biographical facts
were framed by a carved federal shield. %o dates of birth or death were included. *ome of
the stones were broken and retain physical evidence of repairs made in the early 2000s.
le9ander dair C "est eor)e arshall
onathan loan ieut onathan %Fadden
F ath$urn
E5am-les of etera+s ra3es, ta+"ar"ssue 'l'tary ar(ers
Appendix V: 2024 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 333CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS332
23
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
E5am-les of oo" Bur'al E+closures
E5am-les of etal P'-e a+" rou%ht ro+ Bur'al E+closures
o3e+ 're Cra"les
22
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
.ith a handful of exceptions, the burials in Ute Cemetery primarily took place from 0 to
0. After that period, the community predominantly used Aspen rove and Red Butte
Cemeteries, which were more park-like in their design and easier to access. The two later
marked burials at Ute Cemetery, shown below, involved a flat granite tablet marker placed on
a slope in the northeast area of the cemetery and a branded wood marker nailed to the trunk
of a large evergreen with cobblestone coping around the grave.
aniel ura-
Thomas im2son
ater Bur'als at Ute Cemetery
Fenced burial enclosures are found in several locations on the site. 'hotographs from the
0s- 0s that are held by the Aspen Historical *ociety show that others were located there
but have gone missing. .hile wood enclosures likely deteriorated and collapsed, one entire
wrought iron metal enclosure has apparently been removed. *ome of these enclosures mark
the presence of individual graves and others are large enough to hold several burials, typically
of related family members. A few of the enclosures hold gravemarkers and others are empty,
their markers either deteriorated or stolen.
$ost of the enclosures appear to have been assembled of wood, much like picket fencing.
&thers were fabricated of metal pipes or wrought iron. 'ipe fencing would have been
assembled locally from parts that were readily available. ecorative wrought iron was
manufactured in factories and commercially marketed through catalogues. The most common
source of wrought iron fencing in the United *tates was the *tewart !ron .orks of Cincinnati,
&hio. The company remains in business today, and historic profile fences are in their current
catalog of available products. .hile manufacturers plates were typically mounted to the entry
gates, none of these are present in Ute Cemetery, so the origin of the fencing is unknown.
These metal enclosures were mounted in exposed stone bases or secured with buried concrete
anchors. Two woven wire cradle enclosures are also found in the cemetery. Consisting of a
woven wire frame supported by metal posts and with a wire arch above, these were likely made
locally. They surround small graves, indicating the burial of a child.
Appendix V: 2024 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 335CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS334
25
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
$any of these features in Ute Cemetery deteriorated over the past century and have been lost
forever. The few remnants of woodwork, primarily fencing, are scattered throughout the site.
Although some fencing remains standing, most of these features are in severe states of decay
and now simply mark where some of the unidentified graves are located.
The woodwork at Ute Cemetery has continued to deteriorate due to moisture and exposure to
sunlight. Falling trees, or limbs, have also damaged historic fencing around some of the
graves. Because they are so fragile, wood features are the most threatened historic resources
in the cemetery. ecay is often the result of fungi that damage the cellular structure of wood.
This typically occurs in areas of high moisture, such as 9oints or connection points, exposed
end grains, and where the woodwork comes into contact with the ground. The wood fibers
eventually break down, causing a loss of strength and eventual failure. vidence of this can
be seen throughout the site in the form of collapsed fencing. &nce woodwork has failed and
collapsed, it comes into greater contact with the ground, resulting in accelerated deterioration.
.eathering of woodwork is also caused by repeated patterns of wetting and drying, ultraviolet
light, and erosion caused by windblown soil. This process occurs over decades and ultimately
results in erosion, the formation of a surface patina, splintering, and the removal of surface
features. !f the surviving woodwork is in relatively good condition, it needs to be regularly
painted or treated to be preserved. .here it is too far gone, the only mitigation treatment would
involve mapping, measurements and photography.
The gravestones are in better shape than they were over two decades ago prior to preservation
efforts, and the work completed in the early 2000s has held up well. espite this, they will
continue to become worn and stained by sap and windblown soil. *tone and wood
gravemarkers might also develop moss and lichens growing on their surfaces. These living
organisms are a natural part of the alpine environment and do not in themselves cause
significant damage to their host materials. However, they do retain moisture, and moss
especially can damage stonework and woodwork where it is in contact with these materials
primarily through repeated freeze-thaw cycles. %o significantly negative impacts are noted at
Ute Cemetery in relation to the insects, voles, birds, deer and bear that make the site their
home. This natural environment, rather than a groomed one, is central to the cemetery’s
historic character and should not be altered.
Human-caused impacts at historic cemeteries are typically the result of abandonment,
vandalism, poorly conceived or executed repairs, pollution, and a variety of management
practices. The careful work done in the early 2000s cleared the site of excessive vegetative
debris and made the walking paths more accessible and less prone to erosion. &vergrown
vegetation was also cleared from the graves to help protect the wood, stone and metal from
deterioration. ue to these activities, the cemetery remains in good condition today.
Because marble is soft and most of these stones at Ute Cemetery were toppled by vandals,
many have small corner chips or surface scratches. Those that were broken into pieces were
repaired in the early 2000s. !nspection completed for this study found that the repairs are
holding up well, but they should be inspected annually for additional repairs that might become
necessary.
24
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
Condition and Treatment of the Burial Features J Ute Cemetery’s burial features consist of
a variety of cultural resources and artifacts, some of which would be noted by the casual
observer and others that would only be recognized by people familiar with the character of
historic cemeteries. These include wood and metal burial enclosures wood, stone and metal
gravemarkers at the identified graves and stone coping, planted flowers and depressions at
the unmarked graves. !n some cases, the graves include a combination of these features.
espite these surviving characteristics, it is important to understand that other historic features
have disappeared from the cemetery landscape. An unknown number of wood gravemarkers,
crosses and fence enclosures have deteriorated and collapsed to the ground, where remnants
can be seen or they simply disappeared into the vegetation and soil. Coping stones and other
low features such as footstones have sunk into the ground and become obscured by
vegetation. $any of the unmarked grave depressions that were observed two decades ago
are no longer apparent due to erosion and vegetative growth.
'hotographic and anecdotal evidence indicate that some carved wood and stone gravemarkers
have apparently been stolen from the cemetery. This seems to have taken place primarily
around the 0s- 0s and their whereabouts are no longer known. At least one decorative
wrought iron fence enclosure has also been taken from the site. espite these unfortunate
occurrences, no evidence of more recent vandalism was observed.
xposed to the elements, the remaining gravestones and other cultural resources at Ute
Cemetery are sub9ect to various environmental and human-caused impacts. *tone, wood and
metal placed in a cemetery will weather and deteriorate as they would in any other high-altitude
setting. ach type of material has its own strengths and weaknesses, weathers in certain ways,
and is prone to specific types of damage. %atural environmental impacts in Aspen, and at this
location, include factors such as exposure to sunlight, rates of precipitation and humidity,
altitude and atmospheric temperatures, the freeze-thaw cycle, vegetative growth, and the
presence of insects and animals from voles to bears. These constitute the specific
microclimate and microenvironment of the cemetery and contribute to types and rates of
deterioration of various historic materials and artifacts.
*everal individual and family plots are surrounded by metal fencing or stone coping, or
sometimes a combination of both. These run along the perimeters of the gravesites, clearly
marking their boundaries. !n the few cases where sandstone coping was employed to support
metal fencing, and in a couple of locations where no fencing is present, the masons provided
shaped blocks. $ost of the coping stones in the cemetery consist of fieldstones or river cobble.
.here necessary, stonework was stacked to address the slopes on the site, providing flat areas
for burial. ue to sinking and the abundant growth of vegetation, many of the coping stones in
the cemetery are in good condition but are becoming obscured. 'eriodic clearing of the
vegetation from of these areas will keep them visible to the public.
The historic woodwork at Ute Cemetery would have originally consisted of numerous crosses,
tablet-shaped gravemarkers, and fenced grave enclosures. %earby forests likely served as the
source of wood and it could be inexpensively harvested or purchased from a local sawmill or
lumberyard. Carving of inscriptions was done by the families or local craftsmen. .ood was
frequently employed by the indigent or working class during the late 00s and early 00s.
Appendix V: 2024 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 337CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS336
27
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
on!ieration! or te uture
u'"'+% Co+ce-ts ocumentation of the cemetery’s current condition has been
presented in detail in the previous section of this report. However, what about the future A
useful cemetery preservation plan must also address recommendations for how the site might
best be managed and maintained in the coming decades. The goal of the remainder of this
report is to explore methods to protect Ute Cemetery’s historic character, and to preserve the
integrity of the numerous historic resources found there. To achieve this, the plan presents
practical concepts for addressing issues at the site. The overall guiding concept of these
recommendations is to sensitively address the cemetery’s needs, while providing enhanced
opportunities for public access, interpretation, education and appreciation.
!n addition to being a sacred burial ground, the historic importance of Ute Cemetery rests with
the stories it tells of the pioneer mining community’s active years and its decline into the Kquiet
yearsL prior to .orld .ar !!. %o longer an active cemetery, it is emphasized that few
improvements are recommended within the burial area, which should be left largely untouched
by anything other than a few carefully planned and executed maintenance, preservation and
interpretation efforts.
Future work at the site should comply with the ecretar* of t e
nterior,s tanars for
e ai itation. Also of great utility are cemetery preservation publications such as #ynette
*trangstad’s Preservation of Historic B'ria Gro'ns %ational Trust for Historic 'reservation,
Revised 200 Grave*ar Preservation Primer Association for ravestone *tudies,
and Preservation Brief 48: Preserving Grave Markers in Historic Cemeteries U* epartment
of the !nterior, 20 . A wealth of additional information related to various issues impacting
cemeteries may be found online. .hile the information presented in these documents can be
very helpful to decision-making regarding the preservation, restoration and rehabilitation of
historic cemeteries, it is important to note that these resources usually focus upon cemeteries
in the eastern United *tates. #ittle guidance specifically addresses issues, materials and
environmental conditions that are uniquely characteristic of the western United *tates and the
high-altitude Rocky $ountain region in particular.
Although Ute Cemetery’s period of intensive use extended from approximately 0 to 0,
the site and its surroundings have continued to evolve since that time. $ost of the graves date
from the period prior to .orld .ar !!, with very few that post-date the war. %one of the
individuals buried there are known to have been prominent in the community see the
accompanying biographical report for details. All of the burials there, no matter their age,
contribute to the cemetery’s overall history, integrity and significance.
The site’s historic open setting has changed since the 0s as it has become surrounded by
forest along with single-family houses and a community park. However, the thick growth of
vegetation within the cemetery obscures most of the houses and the park from view, causing
the site to retain its historic feeling of isolation from the city. The primary intrusion from the
modern world comes from an occasional automobile or truck traveling along Ute Avenue. The
interior landscape on the site has been transformed through the healthy growth of Aspen trees
and other plants on what was previously the barren flank of Aspen $ountain. As its
26
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
$ost marble monuments suffer from sugaring, particularly along their upward-facing surfaces.
*ugaring occurs when the outermost microscopic surface of the stone dissolves, exposing the
underlying crystalline structure to further deterioration. This is often the result of sulphur dioxide
acid rain in the atmosphere caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Road de-icing activities can
also contribute through the introduction of salts into the environment. The most significant
example of deterioration caused by sugaring is seen on the gravestone of Freddie &vren,
where the inscription on the face has been erased. !n addition, marble gravestones in a forest
environment become stained by sap and insect droppings raining from the trees above, with
wind-blown dirt then sticking to the stones. These should be cleaned every few years through
the gentlest means possible, with soft brushes and dish detergent diluted in water.
The granite gravemarkers at Ute Cemetery are in very good condition and could be cleaned
less often than marble. The only granite on the site that needs some cleaning at this time is
the large Civil .ar -eterans monument at the entrance. %one of these stones were noted to
be damaged or otherwise in need of repairs.
&ne of the best guideline documents for the treatment of gravemarkers is Preservation Brief
48: Preserving Grave Markers in Historic Cemeteries. 'ublished by the %ational 'ark *ervice,
the document can be found online at https
www.nps.gov
orgs
upload
preservation-brief-
-grave-markers.pdf.
he he" u'+s The northwest corner of the cemetery holds the ruins of a small shed-like
building that once stood there. Resting upon a brick foundation, it appears to have been of
wood-frame construction. The walls and roof are missing. .hat remains there today is the
foundation along with deteriorating boards that seem to have served as sill plates. *uspected
to have been a maintenance shed, this use has never been confirmed. !t is recommended that
the shed floor and its surroundings be investigated by archaeologists to see what can be
learned about this building.
he"u'+s '+ the orth4est rea of the Cemetery
Appendix V: 2024 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 339CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS338
29
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
• istinctive features, finishes, and examples of craftsmanship that characterize a
property shall be preserved.
• eteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. .here the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature
shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where
possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by
documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
•Chemical or physical treatments that cause damage to historic materials shall not be
used. *urface cleaning shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
•*ignificant archaeological resources affected by a pro9ect shall be protected and
preserved. !f such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be
undertaken.
•%ew construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property.
The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the
property and its environment.
•%ew construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future,
the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be
unimpaired.
'te --roach E+try Ute Cemetery is accessed from Ute Avenue, and until the early
2000s there was no signage of any kind that identified its presence or invited visitors to enter
the site. Unless they already knew where it was, or got directions from someone in town, most
people would not have known it was there. To some extent that remains the case today,
although there is now a clearly marked main entrance and signage at that location. etermined
travelers will do their research and find a way to visit the site. However, it is recommended that
a sign pointing visitors to the cemetery be placed at the intersection of Cooper Avenue and
&riginal *treet. The main entrance is accessible to pedestrians, with no gate at that location.
.hile vehicles cannot access the cemetery, there is no mechanism to prevent visitors from
accessing the site on foot or by bicycle other than through the posting of regulations. The
entrance should continue to be kept open, and no suggestion is made that it needs to be closed
in any way.
Par('+% C'rculat'o+ 'arking currently takes place along the north side of Ute Avenue,
where there is a small unpaved space that can accommodate several vehicles. !f visitation to
the site is not greatly increased, this serves the cemetery adequately and no recommendations
are made for additional parking or related improvements. 'edestrian circulation through the
site takes place along the internal pathways that meander through the cemetery. These were
lightly improved in the early 2000s to clear them of debris and make the site more inviting to
visitors while retaining its natural feel. !t is recommended that the pathways be retained to feel
as if they have always been there, with no widening or substantial improvements made.
28
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
surroundings are no longer seen clearly from within the site, the cemetery is also no longer
visible from its surroundings. Unless they are designed and groomed to exhibit a park-like
setting, unplanned western cemeteries naturally experience an organic form of change over
time. Ute Cemetery continues to retain an excellent degree of integrity and significance,
supporting its designation to the %ational Register of Historic 'laces. 'rotecting its landmark
status should remain a primary goal of any future preservation work undertaken at the site.
e+eral 'e4s of the Cemetery a+"sca-e
Because of the cemetery’s historic significance, it must be treated with careful thought and
preservation techniques in the future. The City of Aspen has already shown its interest and
abilities in this regard, as it has taken great care of the site in recent decades. According to
the ecretar* of t e
nterior,s tanars for e ai itation, future work at the cemetery should
focus upon preserving those features of the property which are significant to its historic and
cultural values. The tanars are to be applied in a reasonable manner, taking into
consideration economic and technical feasibility. 'atience and good planning are the highest
virtues in this regard. The following list, drawn from the ecretar*,s tanars, succinctly
defines the principles of rehabilitation that should be taken into account on this site
•A property shall be used for its historic purpose, requiring minimal changes to the
defining characteristics of the site and environment.
•The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of
historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property
shall be avoided.
• ach property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding
con9ectural features, shall not be undertaken.
•$ost properties change over time those changes that have acquired historic
significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
Appendix V: 2024 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 341CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS340
31
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
!n most cemeteries, incidents of vandalism are typically the result of misguided 9uvenile pranks,
often committed during nighttime hours as impulsive crimes of opportunity. They 9ust happened
to be walking by or used the site for indulgences in alcohol and drugs and took advantage of a
darkened cemetery that could be disturbed for fun. These types of incidents are best prevented
by clearly showing visitors that the community values the cemetery. Again, an abandoned-
looking site is going to draw more negative attention than one that looks like it is being watched,
managed, and maintained.
Cemeteries also sustain periodic damage from other factors. These might include floods, fires
and falling trees, and from animals such as bears, horses, deer and elk that use monuments
and fencing as scratching posts. .ithout a constant security presence, there is truly no way
to prevent all forms of theft, vandalism and damage from occurring. All that can reasonably be
done is to create an atmosphere that discourages such events from taking place.
The following guidelines can help to minimize vandalism and theft at the site
•$aintain the site so the public can see that it is being watched over and cared for.
•City staff should walk the site regularly to observe its condition and note any problems
that need to be addressed.
•-isitors and the surrounding residents should be asked to help keep an eye on the
cemetery. For visitors, this request would be included in signage at the main entry.
!t is also recommended that the surrounding homeowners be contacted and
recruited. .hile there have not been any specific problems with the cemetery, it
might help in the future if these residents were made more aware of the role they can
play in its security.
•The public should be made more aware of the cemetery, its history, and its
preservation progress through newspaper articles and an online presence. $any
Aspen residents and visitors do not even know that this cemetery exists. They are
more aware of Red Butte Cemetery, which is in west Aspen along the more visible
Cemetery #ane. 'ublicity is unlikely to draw problems to Ute Cemetery, but instead
will bring more people with good intentions to visit the site.
•The press should be notified if vandalism or theft occurs at the cemetery. This will
remind the public that the site is cared for and will recruit additional eyes to keep
watch over the cemetery. !n addition, the public may be able to help retrieve a
missing artifact if it is found somewhere.
•#aw enforcement authorities should be notified of any suspicious activity, vandalism
or theft at the site so they can be aware of and assist with security. !f items are
stolen, notify regional antique dealers and metal recyclers so they will be aware of
the theft in case an attempt is made to sell the artifacts.
30
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
Per'meter
e+c'+% The cemetery’s perimeter is marked by a combination of wood picket
fencing and post-and-rail fencing. These are an important element in defining the site’s
boundaries and protecting its spatial integrity from encroachment from the residences to the
north and west. !n addition, the simple presence of an intact perimeter fence with limited entry
points enhances the appearance that the property is being watched over and maintained. For
these reasons, it is important that the fencing be checked and maintained on an annual basis.
helter me+'t'es Ute Cemetery currently offers visitors no shelter, restroom facilities,
or other amenities. The trees have grown enough that they provide adequate shade during the
warmer months. #ocated a short drive, walk or bike ride from town, visitors do not really need
to have improvements installed on this site and none are recommended.
a+"'ca--e" ccess The Americans with isabilities Act contains standard accessibility
guidelines for trails in outdoor areas. These state that all pedestrian trails shall be accessible
and comply with the guidelines set forth in section of the A A. However, there are
exceptions to this rule, as stated in section . . K ere com# iance )o' ca'se
s'stantia arm to c' t'ra istoric re igio's or significant nat'ra feat'res or c aracteristics+
!n the case of Ute Cemetery, it is not recommended that any new trails be constructed within
the site. The cemetery is already accessible to pedestrians and has an excellent system of
walking paths. !n addition, some of the paths within the burial ground might already be
handicapped accessible. fforts were made in the early 2000s to avoid greatly improving the
historic walking paths. Any such effort should be carefully considered due to the potential
damage it may cause to the site’s historical and environmental integrity.
3ers'%ht a+" ecur'ty The primary concept that applies to oversight and the security
of cemeteries is that a neglected property invites vandalism and theft by appearing to be
unimportant and forgotten. Conversely, when a site is maintained, it creates the image of being
cared about and watched over. A key element of security at Ute Cemetery will therefore revolve
around a general appearance of its continued upkeep, maintenance, and limited access no
motorized vehicles of any kind allowed. Family members are not known to visit the graves,
yet visitors have left flowers, flags and other items from time to time. 'resumably, the site is
also visited by City of Aspen personnel to check on its condition, make sure it is being treated
with respect, and to observe and address any damage or other concerns. !t will remain
important to have the site visited like this on a regular basis.
$ost visitors to Ute Cemetery will have good intentions and are of no concern in relation to site
security. Acts of theft have been exceptionally rare and primarily took place several decades
ago. !n recent decades, the site’s security seems to be quite good. $alicious acts involving
cemeteries are more likely to occur when a vehicle can be pulled into or close to the site
unseen. Those acting with bad intent will prefer to get in with a vehicle, quickly load resources,
and then quietly exit. $ost attractive to thieves are items such as sculptural stonework, iron
fencing, ornamental gates, and other metalwork that has market value. !n recent years, the
rising value of metals has resulted in an increase in thefts from cemeteries. $any of these
items are heavy, and their weight alone will discourage theft if they have to be hand-carried a
good distance. Because of its location, the distances between parking and the historic
resources, and the visitors it tends to draw, there seems to be a low risk of vandalism.
Appendix V: 2024 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 343CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS342
33
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
•The stonework, metalwork, landscaping and other features are maintained by the
City of Aspen, which handles necessary repairs and cleaning. 'lease do not
attempt to clean the stones or move any cemetery features from one place to
another.
• ravestones are extremely heavy and dangerous and can sometimes be tipped over
with very little effort. Adults and children are advised to avoid climbing on or pushing
on any of the stones.
•'ets should be leashed and their wastes disposed of properly.
•This is a historic cemetery that is no longer in use. %o burials of any kind will be
allowed on the site.
•The cemetery is open for visitation each day from dawn to dusk.
•!f you have questions or concerns about this site, please contact the City of Aspen
at phone number.
Pla+t'+%s o+ the 'te Ute Cemetery was never conceived of as a planned, manicured,
irrigated site like Red Butte Cemetery. !nstead, it grew organically from the sudden need for a
burial ground during the community’s first decade of settlement and growth. The unregulated
cemetery continued to be used for fifty years before it slid into abandonment and decline
starting in the 0s. Today the site is located within an Aspen forest and includes both natural
and intentional plantings, impacted by more than 0 years of growth. !n a sense, it has
become a nature preserve, something that the early Aspen community had probably never
anticipated.
The cemetery is located in an alpine environment that receives an adequate amount of
precipitation to support a diversity of vegetation that is native to this region. Among these
native plants are Aspen trees, serviceberry bushes, gambel oak, mountain mahogany, .ood’s
Rose, conifers, and many understory wildflower and native grass species. The abundance of
vegetative growth adds to the cemetery’s charm and is a historic change in itself that should
not be reversed. Returning the site to its original appearance as open land is unnecessary and
would require the removal of many of the plants that are currently there. This would devastate
the historic growth and natural environment of the cemetery. .hile ongoing maintenance and
management of the site’s natural vegetation is important, it must be completed with care.
!ntentional plantings in the cemetery are primarily limited to irises that were placed at some of
the graves many decades ago. *ome of these have survived to the present and provide
evidence of the locations of unmarked graves. %ew plantings of any kind are not recommended
and no irrigation should be installed in the cemetery because of the damage it would cause to
the surviving historic features and the potential for excessive growth of both native and non-
native plant species. A balanced approach to Ute Cemetery’s natural environment should
focus upon careful, unobtrusive, and minimalist efforts toward maintaining the site, with no
inappropriate beautification work completed.
32
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
*ite access and security concerns involve two basic but seemingly opposite interests
discouraging people with malicious intent from entering and damaging the cemetery, while
encouraging those with good intent to visit and experience the historic site. .hile these might
sound impossible to reconcile, thoughtful planning can in fact bring these two goals together.
The posting of cemetery regulations can help to set a tone for how the visitor is expected to
behave while at the site and specifies what activities are approved or not permissible there.
'osted regulations should continue to include notice that the site is open from dawn to dusk.
Curre+t '%+a%e at the Cemetery
escribing the activities that may or may not take place at Ute Cemetery sets a standard for
an environment of respect, and the current signage 9ust inside the entrance is intended to
achieve that goal. Using the term KCemetery tiquetteL as a heading provides the reader with
a positive impression of expected behavior that may result in a greater degree of respect and
acceptance than the imposition of KrulesL or Kregulations.L The following are suggested
standards that may be amended or added to in relation to the needs of this site
•This cemetery is a historic burial ground and should be treated with appropriate
respect for the dead and for the living whose ancestors and loved ones lie buried
here.
•Bicycles and motorized vehicles are not permitted anywhere on the site.
•Although made of stone, grave markers can be damaged or defaced. 'hotography
is recommended as the best way to document inscriptions and avoid negative impact
to the stonework and other site features.
Appendix V: 2024 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 345CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS344
35
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
Care should also be taken to ensure that unmarked graves, often defined by depressions or
fencing without a gravemarker, remain intact unless archaeological investigation is scheduled.
Archaeological oversight of pro9ects that break the surface of the ground, except for routine
resetting of gravemarkers in the same location, will be important due to the probability of
discovering artifacts.
Additional maintenance guidelines specific to the historic features of the site are outlined below
•%o herbicides or fertilizers should be used in any part of the cemetery, as some of
their chemicals may damage stonework. !n addition, they can also sterilize the soil
and increase erosion or cause non-native species to spread.
• ravemarkers, footstones, fencing, coping stones and other features should not be
relocated to accommodate tree or shrub growth, vehicular or pedestrian access, or
to make maintenance activities easier.
•&ther than for specified restoration work, the stonework, metalwork, and any other
historic or possibly historic items should not be moved or removed from the site.
!tems that appear random may be the only evidence of a grave and moving them
might forever erase its presence.
•&nly experienced restoration experts or trained volunteers should handle repairs
and cleaning of stonework, metalwork and other features on the site. .hile they
mean well, unapproved and unsupervised volunteer restoration pro9ects are not
acceptable and in, some cases, can result in irreversible damage.
•&ther than the placement of flowers at graves and tending to family burial areas, no
work of any kind should be done on the site without prior approval from the City of
Aspen.
ater'als estorat'o+ A substantial amount of information about stonework, woodwork,
and ironwork restoration is available online. This information can be accessed through simple
keyword searches. .hile online analysis and guides to restoration are very useful, it should
be remembered that Ute Cemetery is in a high altitude, exposed environment. Consequently,
it is sub9ected to environmental conditions that are more akin to other Rocky $ountain
cemeteries than to those located along the astern seaboard, $idwest, or .est Coast.
$any cemetery studies that have been completed and posted online have involved sites that
are east of the $ississippi. This is simply a factor of where most restoration pro9ects have been
taking place. .hile these sites hold monuments of granite and marble, they often contain
numerous slate markers and fewer sandstone ones. !ronwork rusts more quickly in a humid
environment than a dry one such as Aspen. The strength of the sun’s rays in the high-altitude
Rocky $ountain .est adds to the rapid deterioration of woodwork. Regional characteristics
such as weather patterns, humidity, air pollution, vegetative growth, and altitude play a part in
how these cemeteries’ resources have aged and how the materials need to be treated.
34
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
!n terms of maintenance, the cemetery will continue to benefit from selective pruning and
removal of problem plants. For example, tree branches should be pruned to avoid scraping or
hitting gravemarkers, and trees or limbs in danger of falling should be removed as soon as
possible. $uch of this work was accomplished in the early 2000s. For the future, a good rule
of thumb is to remove trees and shrubs that are located within two feet of gravemarkers and
fence enclosures because as they grow larger, they are prone to disrupt and damage these
historic features. 'lantings can always be replaced or will return naturally, but gravemarkers
and other cultural features cannot. The thick growth of trees and understory plants around the
perimeter of the site should be left in place as they provide a visual buffer between the burial
ground and the street and surrounding residences.
Bur'al rea a'+te+a+ce !n recent decades, the City of Aspen completed maintenance
efforts that included cleaning, repairing and resetting individual gravemarkers, clearing the
walking paths, pruning of shrubs, and selective removal of trees and limbs that have fallen or
are threatening to topple. This work involved professional and volunteer labor, and funding
provided by the City of Aspen and Colorado *tate Historical Fund. ue to these efforts, the
cemetery is in very good condition today. There are, however, a few additional maintenance
issues that require guidance for the future.
.hile most of the stonework is in good condition, the inscriptions on a few of the marble
gravestones are starting to fade due to sugaring and the loss of crystalline structure. At the
grave of Freddie &vren, the inscription is almost gone and similar damage is starting to occur
on a few of the Civil .ar gravemarkers. &nce the outer layer of stone wears away, the rate of
deterioration tends to increase and there is no way to stop it. Preservation Brief 48: Preserving
Grave Markers in Historic Cemeteries offers recommendations for various treatments that
could slow down the decay of inscriptions before they are too far gone.
*ome of the gravemarkers, as well as footstones, coping and other features, are also quite low
to the ground and special attention will be required to keep them from disappearing. They are
not only sinking but are becoming obscured by the abundance of grasses that grow and die off
each year. These should be raised and leveled as needed, preferably by a monument
contractor or by volunteers under the guidance of an experienced preservation consultant or
conservator. 'lants growing around the marked graves should be trimmed once a year to
maintain the visibility of the gravemarkers as well as lower profile features such as footstones.
&perators of trimming equipment should be instructed in proper techniques to minimize
negative impact to the stonework and woodwork.
'aramount in importance is that all maintenance personnel, including temporary contractors
and volunteers, be instructed to avoid any work that would negatively impact the surviving
gravemarkers, coping stones, and fencing. For example, weed-cutters using spinning nylon
cord should be used in such a way that they do not hit the gravemarkers and woodwork.
ranite is much less prone to damage, although it can be chipped and scratched with greater
impact. The softer markers are particularly susceptible to damage from harsh techniques and
repeated impact over time. Falling stones of any kind are prone to chip or even break and care
must be taken to avoid knocking stones over during maintenance activities.
Appendix V: 2024 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 347CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS346
37
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
uture Bur'als Ute Cemetery is a historic site and no longer an active burial ground. %o
burials have taken place there in several decades, and most of the graves date from the period
prior to 0. escendants of the deceased are not known to visit the site. Although space is
available, the cemetery is being managed as a landmarked historic resource. The City of
Aspen should continue to make it clear that it is managed as such and that no burials are
allowed. This should include the restriction that monuments and perennial plantings that do
not comply with the preservation plan will be prohibited and removed if found to have been
placed there without permission. &nce a body is buried, it will be problematic to have it
disinterred. For this reason, these restrictions need to be posted at the main entrance, on the
City’s website, and in any relevant cemetery publications.
Documentation & Interpretation
ecor"s ocume+tat'o+ This pro9ect included two phases of work. The first covers
the documentation and assessment of the cemetery’s historic character and features, along
with a discussion of preservation considerations that will guide its management into the future.
The results of that effort are presented in this plan. A separate biographical report is being
prepared to provide updated and expanded information about the people who are buried there
in marked and unmarked graves. These documents, together with historic resources such as
maps and newspaper articles dating back to the 0s, photographs from the 0s- 0s
held by the Aspen Historical *ociety, and even the records of the preservation work completed
at the site in the early 2000s, constitute the recorded life of Ute Cemetery. %o management
records exist from the cemetery’s most intensive period use between 0 and 0.
The records described, now including the current preservation plan and biographical report,
will remain central to management and interpretation of the site for years to come. They also
form the core of a historical collection focusing upon this cemetery. The City of Aspen will need
to ensure that these records are kept together and not misplaced, that they are well organized,
and that they continue to be available to historians and genealogists.
'te +ter-retat'o+ !n 2002, the City of Aspen arranged to have an interpretive brochure
prepared for Ute Cemetery. A distribution box was placed 9ust inside the cemetery entrance,
mounted to a signpost below a sign that welcomes visitors and provides them with guidelines
for activities on the site. The quarter-fold brochure measured Lx L and included information
about the cemetery’s history, historic character, ecological features, and preservation. &n
recent visits to the cemetery, the box was found to be empty. There is no other interpretive
signage on the site. !f hard copies of the brochure are not going to be made available, the City
of Aspen should either install interpretive signage or post a QR code at the entrance
encouraging visitors to go online for information about the cemetery. -isitors should also be
directed to the City’s webpage at https
www.aspen.gov
Historic-'reservation.
!f interpretive signage is preferred, it should be designed to complement the character of the
site. !n no way should it detract from the cemetery’s integrity and overall appearance, so
signage should be restricted to the main entrance or perhaps a few select locations.
$anufactured signs that are printed can last for many years, and modern materials and printing
36
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
.hile much of the information online might be applicable to the resources found at Ute
Cemetery, the City of Aspen should also look to analogous sites in the Rocky $ountain .est
that would serve as examples of restoration concerns and techniques. &ne source of
information on recent efforts to preserve and maintain historic cemeteries in the mountains is
the Colorado *tate Historical Fund. The %ational 'ark *ervice’s %ational Center for
'reservation Technology Training also offers excellent information and training in the field of
cemetery conservation. !ts website at www.ncptt.nps.gov is a good source of articles and
tutorials about various aspects of restoring cemetery monuments, fencing and woodwork,
along with related topics of interest. Again, Preservation Brief 48: Preserving Grave Markers
in Historic Cemeteries provides excellent guidance.
Because the field of cemetery restoration, and particularly of monument conservation, is
evolving, it is important to seek out current standards, recent studies, and applicable guides for
the treatment of stonework, ironwork, and woodwork. ated information on cleansers, for
example, can result in failed cleaning efforts or even damage to stonework that could have
been avoided by obtaining information on state-of-the-art materials and techniques. The
challenge of conserving historic cemetery woodwork in a western environment is a sub9ect that
has recently come under study, and analysis is 9ust starting to be published online.
!t is important to remember that cemetery monuments can be damaged and restoration work
is often best left to professional conservators. .hile admirable in their intent, ambitious Boy
*cout pro9ects and other efforts undertaken by unsupervised volunteers often result in
increased damage or poorly executed repairs that are irreversible. %o repairs of any kind
should be undertaken at Ute Cemetery without the prior knowledge and approval of the City of
Aspen. !n addition, even though regional monument companies are skilled at fabricating new
gravemarkers, carpenters know how to handle woodwork, and ironworkers are good at
fabricating and repairing metalwork, they must be interviewed to determine whether they have
the sensitivity and training to undertake preservation pro9ects before such work begins.
Few practical options are available in terms of wood preservation at Ute Cemetery. Although
treatment of the woodwork with preservatives is possible, this will only slow down the ultimate
loss of these resources if they are left outdoors. The only way to truly preserve historic
cemetery woodwork from loss is to move it indoors into a protected, climate-controlled
environment. The KReturn to %atureL option is probably the most sensible solution, allowing
the woodwork to continue to deteriorate without any form of intervention. The only preservation
treatment would be to document the historic wood features on the site in detail and as they are
currently found. Although this approach will ultimately lead to the loss of all remaining
woodwork in the cemetery, information about these artifacts would be captured for future
knowledge and research. &ther than taking measurements, the woodwork on the site has
already been photographed twice in the past two decades.
&ne other option is known as K*tabilization and *elective Repair
Replacement.L This would
involve repairs where possible and replacement of missing and severely deteriorated
components of wood enclosures using identical wood species and profiles. ach artifact and
situation would need to be studied and addressed considering its unique problems and
characteristics. However, in most cases the woodwork is already severely deteriorated, and it
is advisable that no interventions be made.
Appendix V: 2024 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 349CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS348
38
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Documenting the Past –Planning for the Future
techniques have improved dramatically. They will eventually wear out due to constant
exposure to the elements, particularly in high-altitude settings, or if they are damaged by other
causes. High-quality printed signs can be obtained at a much lower cost than other options,
making them affordable to replace when necessary.
Part of the Ute Cemetery Brochure, Early 2000s
Ute Cemetery’s interpretive brochure has served the site well, although after more than twenty
years it could be improved upon. For example, the text could be made more readable and it
could be reduced in size to a tri-fold with a QR code that directs readers to the City of Aspen’s
website for more information. A site map showing the walking paths and points of interest
might also be included. Brochures are still an excellent interpretive option because they can
include a substantial amount of information, can be edited and modified as new information
becomes available, and can be printed as needed and placed in the distribution box at the site.
Finally, it is recommended that this updated preservation plan and the accompanying
expanded biographical materials be made available online, replacing the documents that were
produced in the early 2000s.
Appendix V: 2024 Ute Cemetery Preservation Plan, Tatanka
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 351CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS350
Appendix W: Public and Stakeholder feedback
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 353CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS352
Appendix W: Public and Stakeholder feedback
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 355CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS354
Appendix W: Public and Stakeholder feedback
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX 357CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS356
Appendix W: Public and Stakeholder feedback
APPENDIX|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANAPPENDIX358
UTE PROPERTIES
Management Plan
December 2025
Ute Cemetery, circa 1895 Image Credit: Aspen Historical Society
UTE CEMETERY
Management Plan
December 2025
Contents
INTRODUCTION ......................................4-13
FOREWORD ...........................................14-15
HISTORY .............................................16-25
ACQUISITION BACKGROUND .....................26-27
PROCESS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ..........28-29
MANAGEMENT PLAN GOALS .....................30-31
EXISTING CONDITIONS ..........................32-63
PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS .......64-65
OPPORTUNITIES AND PLANNING ISSUES .......66-75
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS ........................76 - 8 3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
The Ute Properties Management Plan is a product of City of Aspen
Parks and Open Space Department. Special thank you to Rebecca Weiss
for historical research and content development. Thank you to our
subject experts Tatanka Historical Associates, Peak Ecological Services,
Colorado Wildlife Sciences, Sopris Engineering Survey Team, Land Title
Guarantee Company, and the Aspen Historical Society.
INTRODUCTION|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 5CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS4
PLANSUMMARY
This 2025 management plan for the Ute Cemetery combines adjacent City of Aspen properties: Ute Cemetery
Open Space, Ute Park, and the “Benedict” parcel. Together, the properties occupy a 7.6-acre area between the
Roaring Fork River and Ute Avenue east of downtown Aspen. Ute Cemetery is a site of unique local historical
importance, established in 1880 and listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 2002. This cemetery,
as sacred ground, is a unique open space property and requires a specific approach to guiding appropriate
visitation and use.
This plan aims to build upon the ‘Ute Cemetery Landscape Improvements Report’ completed in September
2001 by BHA design. This original report was the guiding document that lead to many important landscape
improvements to the site and strategies for maintenance. The plan evaluates the current conditions of the
space and provides a framework for natural resource maintenance, historic resource protection, recreational
uses and interpretation and education opportunities.
GOALS
This management plan prioritizes the long-term preservation and resilience of the three contiguous parcels at
the eastern edge of Aspen. The following goals have been identified by the public and stakeholders during the
2025 planning process.
• Protect, preserve, and interpret the historical and cultural resources, specifically those within Ute Cemetery.
• Provide educational opportunities regarding the values of Ute Cemetery, its historical, cultural, and visual resourc-
es, and its significance to the history of Aspen.
• Preserve and enhance the natural resources, including maintaining and promoting healthy ecosystems and their
essential components and processes
• Provide and maintain safe and enjoyable outdoor recreation opportunities.
• Partner with the City of Aspen Utilities Department for the maintenance and management of the Wheeler Ditch.
OUTREACH HIGHLIGHTS
To help with the development of the Ute Cemetery Management Plan the City of Aspen gathered feedback
from stakeholders and community members. Various local stakeholders shared their insights on current
conditions, trends and needs at the beginning of the planning process. Public input was collected through an
online survey and stakeholder outreach in the fall of 2025. A total of 8 responses were collected. The draft
management plan was released for partner and public review in September of 2025.
HOW TO USE THIS PLAN
This plan is a near- to mid-range planning tool to budget for management actions to preserve Ute Properties
for future generations.
Section 1 Details the site and area’s history leading to the open space that exists today.
Section 2 chronicles the acquisition history of the 3 parcels considered in the management plan.
Section 3 describes the planning process and outlines the timeline to council adoption.
Section 4 provides the regional context, and site’s existing conditions including natural resources, historical
resources, visual resources and existing plans and policies that influence the current uses of the properties.
Section 5 The Ute Properties Management Plan has been developed in coordination with input from the
public and stakeholders. Section 5 summarizes public and stakeholder comments.
Section 6 provides a framework for potential future uses and actions within the planning area with regard
to land use restrictions, maintenance, natural resources, historical resources, recreation and trails, and
interpretation and education.
Section 7 Considers future management actions. The management actions in this document have been
developed based on considerations including the conditions of the planning area, input from professional
evaluations, comments from the community and stakeholders, and administrative direction. The overall desired
outcome is that the open space should be conserved and enhanced.
7CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS6INTRODUCTION|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN
Aspen Parks and Open Space
0 MI..25 MI.N
Parks
Open Spaces
Trails
PARKSANDOPENSPACE
9CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS8INTRODUCTION|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN
Ute Cemetery
Ute Park
Benedict
0 ft.100 ft. 0 ft.500 ft. NNUte Properties Context Map
Ute Properties Roa
r
ing
Fork River Ut
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
11CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS10INTRODUCTION|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLANPhoto Credit: Anders Weiss Aerial of properties
UTEPROPERTIES PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTS
Total planning area: 7.51 acres
• Open Space values: historic and cultural resources, wildlife habitat, native
vegetation communities, scenic views, recreation, river access, historic raw
water ditch still in municipal use
• Ecological value: connects habitats of Richmond Ridge to the Roaring
Fork River
• Trails: Ute Avenue Trail, Aspen Club Trail, Wheeler Ditch Trail, footpaths in
Ute Cemetery and Ute Park
• 132 plant species identified, including 6 trees, 24 shrubs, 59 perennial
forbs, 13 annual forbs, 27 perennial graminoids, two annual graminoids, and
one fern ally.
• 23 bird species documented
• 9 mammal species documented, 18 mammal species suspected to occur
• 83 wildlife species known or suspected to occur; 19 of these are species
of conservation concern
• Glacial landform: late Pleistocene terminal moraine
Ute Cemetery Open Space: 4.227 acres
• Established: 1880
• City acquisition: 1971
• Active use: 1880 - 1930s
• Graves: approx. 185-200 (78 marked, at least 130 unmarked)
• Civil War veteran graves: 37
• State Historic Register designation: 2001; National Register designation:
2002
• Maintenance & restoration projects: 1886, 1890, late 1990s, 2002
• Irises: originated as plantings at grave sites
• Massive Douglas fir trees: estimated to be 220+ years old
Ute Park: 3.027 acres
• Acquisition by City: 1958
• Primary uses: native habitat, nature exploration, children’s play area, fishing
access
• Play structures: for ages 5-12, replaced in 2022
• Fantasy art sculpture: by Lou Wille in 1968
• Historic ditch: Wheeler Ditch built in 1882 for municipal use
Benedict Parcel: 0.317 acres
• Acquisition by City: 1972
• Key functions: preserves contiguous native ecosystem
INTRODUCTION|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 13CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS12
MANAGEMENTACTIONS
MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
M1 Repair and maintain fencing on the Ute Cemetery property and mark property corners.
M2 Work toward long term improvements of the Wheeler Ditch inlet infrastructure.
M3 Formalize interior circulation patterns for the Ute Cemetery and Ute Park parcels.
M4 Formalize public art installation.
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
NR1 Develop ongoing invasive weed management plan for Ute properties
NR2 Enhance pollinator and riparian habitat
NR3 Manage vegetation for habitat improvement, wildfire prevention and to preserve existing understory and
groundcover plants.
NR4 Manage the development of social trails to limit resource damage
HISTORIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
HR1 Manage vegetation within the Ute Cemetery to ensure preservation of historic elements
HR2 Restore and stabilize historic grave markers and other historic elements per recommendations from the Ute
Cemetery Preservation Plan
HR3 Enhance organization and thoroughness of documentation for Ute Cemetery
HR4 Update the property regulations to reflect modern preservation best practices for cemeteries.
RECREATION AND TRAILS MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
RT1 Formalize interior circulation patterns for the Ute Cemetery and Ute Park parcels.
RT2 Evaluate historic play structures and identify necessary improvements
RT3 Improve access to the site and area through additional signage and improved parking for properties and Ute trail.
RT4 Monitor development within the Roaring Fork corridor for trail easement opportunities.
RT5 Evaluate the Southwest entrance to the site for ADA accessible trail
INTERPRETATION AND EDUCATION MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
IE1 Update and install regulatory signage.
IE2 Develop interpretative panel(s) for the Ute cemetery.
IE3 Partner with local organizations to provide interpretative tours of the properties.
15CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS14FOREWARD|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN
FOREWORD
Courtesy of Aspen Historical Society: Hiser Collection Ute Cemetery, 1966 Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff Civil War Headstones
This management plan
combines adjacent City
of Aspen properties: Ute
Cemetery Open Space, Ute
Park, and the Benedict parcel.
Together, these properties
occupy a 7.571-acre area
between the Roaring Fork
River and Ute Avenue east of
downtown Aspen. While each
of these directly adjacent
parcels feature distinct natural
and built attributes, they are
related by proximity and by
the continuous ecological
landscape that they share.
On these bases, the City of
Aspen Open Space Program
approaches management
of these properties in a
coordinated way through
this joint management
plan. While several prior
studies, documentation, and
preservation plans have been
developed to address Ute
Cemetery as an important
historic and cultural site, this
is the first comprehensive
management plan that has
been developed by the City for
this parcel and the adjoining
Ute Park and Triangle parcels.
Ute Cemetery is a site
of unique local historical
importance, established in
1880 and listed in the National
Register of Historic Places
in 2002. Originally named
Evergreen Cemetery, it was
Aspen’s first graveyard and
the final resting place of the
community’s early working
class and indigent through
the early 1900s. Today, the
site contains a trove of local
history in the markers and
stories of those buried at the
4.227-acre site. The City of
Aspen acquired Ute Cemetery
in 1971, in a gift/purchase
from a private individual.
This cemetery, as sacred
ground, is a unique open
space property and requires a
specific approach to guiding
appropriate maintenance,
visitation, and use.
Adjacent to the east is Ute
Park, a minimally developed,
3.027-acre natural park space
featuring aspen groves and
wildflowers, riverfront riparian
habitat, a small playground and
picnic table, and footpaths that
connect to surrounding trails,
including footpaths in Ute
Cemetery and the Ute Avenue,
Aspen Club, and Wheeler Ditch
Trails. The original portion of
Ute Park was acquired by the
City of Aspen in 1958 via BLM
patent. The park was dedicated
in 1993 as part of the Ute
Summit and United Nations
Year of Indigenous Peoples. A
plaque on site commemorates
this dedication and recognizes
the relocation of the Ute
People in 1881.
Ute Park also encompasses the
head of the historic Wheeler
Ditch, built in 1882 by a citizen’s
public interest group that
formed the Aspen Irrigation
and Ditch Company. Still in
use today, the Wheeler Ditch
feeds base flows for the City’s
stormwater system, the small
streams that flow along the
Pedestrian Mall, and limited
irrigation uses. The starting
point of the Wheeler Ditch and
its diversion infrastructure are
located on this parcel at the
shore of the Roaring Fork River.
The ditch follows a contour for
a short distance through the
property to a point where it
enters an underground culvert.
The City of Aspen currently
operates under an agreement
with Colorado Water Trust
to maintain streamflow in
the Roaring Fork River in
low water years by reducing
water volume diverted into the
Wheeler Ditch while preserving
the City’s water rights. The
Wheeler Ditch Trail traverses
the riverfront portion of Ute
Park between the Aspen Club
Trail and the western boundary
of the property.
The third parcel included
in this management plan is
a 0.317-acre parcel located
between Ute Cemetery and
Ute Park at their northwestern
boundaries, hereafter referred
to as the Benedict Parcel. This
small plot of undeveloped
land was given to the City in
1971 and serves to preserve
continuous native habitat.
The three City of Aspen
properties addressed in this
joint management plan form
a contiguous landscape, the
majority of which sits on
rolling, hilly, glacial moraine
above the Roaring Fork River
where it hosts some of the
last remaining fragments of
the upland, native flora that
once blanketed the valley
floor where the City of Aspen
has grown over the past 145
years. Here, the historic natural
landscape is largely intact,
and the landforms sculpted
by Pleistocene era glaciers
and subsequent forces of
weathering and river action can
be observed. The site’s native
ecosystems support a variety
of native terrestrial and aquatic
wildlife, with the greatest
biodiversity represented in
the riparian ecosystems along
the river. Of special note are
the pale purple native pasque
flowers that bloom in the
understory beneath the open
aspen woodlands, a springtime
delight as the snowpack melts.
Throughout this management
plan document, these
properties will be referred
to together as the “planning
area,” or individually by name.
This plan provides coordinated
and comprehensive guidance
for the management of these
adjacent properties and will be
updated every ten years.
17CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS16HISTORY|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN
HISTORY
Courtesy of Aspen Historical Society 1896 Willits Map
UTE CEMETERY
Established in 1880 during Aspen’s early days as a newly formed silver-mining district, Ute Cemetery is one
of the area’s most significant local historical sites, providing insight into the livelihoods and culture of the
community from boom through bust. According to professional site surveys and documentation, at least 185
people and as many as 200 people are buried in 4.227-acre Ute Cemetery. Seventy-eight graves are currently
marked, most of which identify the occupants. Site surveys conducted in 2001 documented evidence of at least
107 unmarked graves1. These burials took place primarily during the period of active use, between 1880 and
1930; only two burials are known at Ute Cemetery after 1930.
Prior to 1879 when prospectors settled the camp then known as Ute City, the Roaring Fork Valley
had been home to the Ute people for more than 800 years2. Little is known of how the Utes lived
during that time, including their burial traditions. Despite its name, Ute Cemetery has no known
cultural or historical ties to the Ute people3. The nearby Ute Springs is thought to have been a former
campsite of the Utes who typically located their summer camps near ground-source springs4 , and Ute
Cemetery may have received its name by proximal association.
Informed in large part by the Hayden Geological Survey released in the fall of 1878, prospectors
began to arrive in 1879 via several mountain passes to explore the area’s promising geological
formations, stake claims, and establish a permanent camp. The ensuing rapid influx of people led
to a local population of 150 by the following year. Propelled by discoveries of silver ore, boosters’
promises, and investors’ capital, the nascent city of Aspen was launched into an astounding boom
phase during which it produced one-sixth of U.S. silver and one-sixteenth of silver produced on a
worldwide scale. Aspen would reach a peak population of about 12,000 in the early 1890s, becoming
Colorado’s third largest city.
Life during the mining era was rugged and rife with hazards, some of the greatest of which were
experienced in the shafts, drifts, and workings of the local mines where men fell to accidents
involving explosives, hoisting equipment, cave-ins, fires, toxic air, and more. Other occupations took
their toll as well, including those of timbering and sawmill operators, mail delivery men, mule skinners,
railroad men, and mill workers. Adding to this were flu epidemics, cholera, and other illnesses,
avalanches, malnutrition, suicide, and the vulnerabilities of the very young and the elderly in the
remote mountain town. Ute Cemetery is a grim catalogue of the dangers faced by pioneers in the
high mountain valleys.
1 “Historic Preservation Plan Ute Cemetery, Aspen, Colorado,” Tatanka Historical Associates, February 16, 2024, page 13.
2 “Local History Timeline: Pre-1879 Ute People,” aspenhistory.org, date accessed February 20, 2025.
3 Anna Scott, Aspen Historical Society, personal communication shared on Ute Cemetery and the Ute people, November 2024.
4 “Local History Timeline: Pre-1879 Ute People,” aspenhistory.org, date accessed February 20, 2025.
HISTORY|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 19CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS18
The first death in early Aspen was that of newcomer Colonel Kirby of Texas5, when he perished due
to “mountain fever” shortly after his arrival in town following an arduous journey over Red Mountain
Trail in June 1880. At the time of Kirby’s passing, no graveyard existed in Aspen and his remains were
laid to rest on private land owned by Charles A. Hallam southeast of town at the end of Ute Avenue
(relatives relocated Kirby’s remains to Texas the following year). Local members of the Masons
conducted the funeral and Judge Deane spoke; Kirby’s coffin was hewn from logs felled that day,
and his grave was marked by a pile of boulders6. Later, the City’s leaders recognized the need for
a designated burial ground and on June 4, 1881, they ordered the Committee on Health to pursue
establishment of a public cemetery.
Although Hallam’s property was considered too close to town, no appropriate outlying location
was identified, and the site, originally referred to as Evergreen Cemetery, continued to be used.
Evergreen Cemetery was apparently not managed by the City’s Board of Trustees thereafter, with
no mention of a cemetery in public ordinances between 1881 and 1895. Ute Avenue, much shorter at
that time than it is today, ended well before the cemetery, making it necessary for mourners, visitors,
and funeral processions to walk into the site. The unregulated cemetery was open to all, charged no
fees, and was not maintained on a regular basis7. While most graves face to the east, they are laid out
randomly and flowers such as lilacs and iris planted on graves, some naturalized and surviving to date,
constituted the only landscaping.
Located on the well-drained, rolling landscape of a glacial moraine, Ute Cemetery’s setting had a very
different appearance in the late 1800s. While the site has largely transitioned to aspen woodland
today, historically, the primary vegetation was scattered native shrubs interspersed with wildflowers
and grasses adapted to the dry, sunny conditions. Several small Douglas fir or “evergreen” trees
growing on the site likely inspired the cemetery’s first name. The open nature of the site afforded a
clear view of town from its high points. The rocky morainal debris containing unsorted rocks of all
shapes and sizes surely presented a challenging experience for those preparing grave sites.
As the local population grew through the 1880s, so did the death rate. Although Aspen had a
relatively peaceable reputation among Colorado’s mountain mining districts, dramatic events
occasionally took their toll. On March 11, 1884, an avalanche rushed down Aspen Mountain, burying
the shaft house of the Vallejo Mine and killing all but those who had been working underground.
On the evening of June 4th, 1889, fire broke out in the Iowa Shaft Mine, quickly spreading flames
and toxic fumes throughout its extensive underground workings; those unable to escape perished.
Other incidents took the lives of community members: mechanics, ranchers, housewives, carpenters,
unskilled laborers, the elderly, and children8.
As with early cemeteries in other remote Colorado mining communities, Aspen’s Evergreen Cemetery
was established in a hurry and out of necessity. With priorities and limited funds, time, and energy
focused on matters of the mining industry, graves were created in a random fashion rather than in an
orderly grid pattern typical of formal cemeteries that were planned and managed9. The site was un-
manicured and wild, vegetated by original native plants except for small floral plantings at graves.
Many graves were modestly marked with materials close at hand such as river cobbles and simple
wooden markers; some had carved headstones resting on sandstone bases (available after railroads
were established and such items could be ordered and freighted) and a few family plots were
enclosed by picket or iron fences. Many others were unmarked. As the cemetery’s rocky, rolling
terrain prevented wheeled vehicle access, families and friends without the means to hire an
undertaker likely brought their deceased to the end of Ute Avenue in a wagon, proceeded on foot
to the grave site, and performed their own burial. This was the resting place of the indigent and the
working class10.
Aspen’s earliest residents were mostly single men, many of whom, upon death, received their
funerals at public expense. Others were members of fraternal lodges that provided a form of life
insurance to members, covering basic burial expenses and offering support to widows and children
left behind. The first undertaking business in Aspen, that of E. C. Morse, opened in 1885, followed by
H. P. Orndorff in 1889 and Allen & Wilson in 189011. Their services prepared the deceased for burial,
conveyed them to the cemetery in horse-drawn hearses, and buried them.
On May 30, 1885, the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) organized a Decoration Day celebration
to honor the many living and dead Civil War veterans in Aspen and across the country12. Local GAR
members cleaned up the cemetery in following years as preparation for this well-attended annual
event. In April 1890, fifteen white marble, government-issue headstones arrived by train to mark the
graves of Evergreen Cemetery’s Civil War veterans, most of whom were unmarried men who had
died with no local family to pay for a proper funeral and headstone. These men were reburied in
Markers for Civil War soldiers at the Ute Cemetery, 1966.Courtesy of Aspen Historical Society : Hiser Collection5 “Communicated,” Aspen, Colo. April 19, 1881, The Aspen Times (weekly), April 23, 1890, page 2.
6 “The First Grave.” The Aspen Times (weekly), April 23, 1881. Colorado Historic Newspapers Collection.
7 “Historic Preservation Plan Ute Cemetery, Aspen, Colorado,” Tatanka Historical Associates, February 16, 2024, page 4.
8 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places Registration Form OMB No. 1024-
0018, Section 8, Pages 5-6.
9 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places Registration Form OMB No. 1024-
0018, Section 8, Page 8.
10 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places Registration Form OMB No. 1024-0018, Section 8, Page 8.
11 “Honoring the Brave,” Aspen Daily Times, June 1, 1890.
12 “Monuments for Union Soldiers,” Aspen Daily Times, April 23, 1890, page 3.
HISTORY|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 21CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS20
Ute Cemetery, 1966. George Vogel was born in Germany on October 13, 1853. By 1885 he was living in Aspen, where he resided with
several single roommates working in the mining industry. Vogel died on April 23, 1887.Courtesy of Aspen Historical Society : Hiser CollectionUte Ave, Circa 1930 Courtesy of Aspen Historical Society two rows, and over the next several decades more veterans’ remains were added to the formation,
eventually totaling twenty-nine13. As if standing at attention in formation even in death, the graves
of the veterans constitute the only organized section of the cemetery. Plans at this time indicated
organizing the veteran’s graves around a cenotaph, however no cenotaph is known to have existed
there. Eight additional Civil War veterans’ graves exist elsewhere in the cemetery apart from the two
formal rows, bringing the total to thirty-seven.
Two other cemeteries were later established in Aspen: Aspen Grove Cemetery in 1889 and Red Butte
Cemetery in 189914. Their garden-like layouts and groomed appearance served the needs of the upper
and middle classes, containing the graves of citizens who had achieved wealth or status: mine owners,
engineers, mayors, attorneys, and business owners. In relation to these two new cemeteries, the 1896
Willits Map of Aspen labels the site of Ute Cemetery as the “Old Cemetery.” 15
In 1893, the repeal of the Sherman Silver Act precipitated a crash in the silver market that dealt a
massive blow to Aspen’s mining industry and economy. While major mines continued to operate, many
less productive operations closed along with associated services, and thousands of residents left the
area. Around 1900, Evergreen Cemetery began to be referred to as Ute Cemetery, likely in reference
to nearby Ute Springs16, and continued to be used by the community’s working class. After 1930, when
the town’s population had dropped to about 700 people, only two subsequent burials were known to
have taken place at Ute Cemetery. This humble graveyard is now an important historical and cultural
site and a window into Aspen’s storied past.
Maintenance of Ute Cemetery has been a challenge since its early days, and the site was neglected
for many decades after the early 1900s with few family members of the deceased remaining in the
area. Over the decades, aspen saplings and other vegetation grew throughout the site, obscuring
the cemetery’s cultural features. The 1960s marked a period when gravestones and other relics went
missing and were likely sold as antiques; the neglected state of the site may have made it more of
a target for such activities. In July 1962, the Aspen Times reported a vandalism incident that left
thirty-three grave markers toppled, some broken into pieces17. On October 21, 1971, the City of Aspen
purchased Ute Cemetery for ten dollars from James C. Blanning18. Also in 1971, Richard Cowling
created a genealogical report of Pitkin County’s cemeteries, including Ute Cemetery, for which he
noted overgrown conditions, missing and broken grave markers, and listed all names, dates, and other
information from existing markers at that time19. In 1986, the Aspen Historical Society organized a
volunteer cleanup effort. With the development of the adjacent Ten-Ten Ute Subdivision property
in 1987, the fence along the cemetery’s northern boundary was removed, creating new potential for
impacts to the historical property.
In 1996, Vinita Sidhu, a Harvard University Graduate School of Design intern, produced a study for
13 “Monuments for Union Soldiers,” Aspen Daily Times, April 23, 1890, page 3.
14 “Historic Preservation Plan Ute Cemetery, Aspen, Colorado,” Tatanka Historical Associates, February 16, 2024, page 4.
15 Aspen Historical Society. “1896 Willits Map of Aspen.” Archive Record 1965.031.0001 Map. Public Square now known as Triangle Park.
16 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places Registration Form OMB No. 1024-0018, Section 8, Page 9
17 “Tombstones, cars and signs feel fury of Aspen vandals,” The Aspen Times (weekly), July 6, 1962.
18 Koch, Kathryn. “City Property,” unpublished manuscript, circa 2012, page 19.
19 Cowling, Richard. “Colorado Genealogical Etcetera Volume One: Cemeteries of Pitkin County.” 1971. Aspen Historical Society Archive
Record 1992.030.0005.
HISTORY|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 23CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS22
Ute Children’s Park, 1969 Courtesy of Aspen Historical Society: Aspen Illustrated News Collection UTE PARK
Ute Park is a 3.027-acre parcel with two distinct portions. The greater portion of this parcel sits on
a largely flat bench of land above the Roaring Fork River and adjacent to Ute Cemetery; this area is
described as the “park” in the following history summary. The north side of this bench slopes abruptly
down to the river’s edge, and a smaller, narrow (0.7-acre) portion of the parcel follows the riverfront
to the northwest. The historic Wheeler Ditch is located on this portion of the parcel which is referred
to as the “ditch” portion of Ute Park and is described after the history of the “park” parcel.
Little is known about use of the land that is now the “park” portion of Ute Park prior to its platting
in 1956 and patenting to the City of Aspen by the Bureau of Land Management in August 1958.
At that time, the site was known as Bavaria Park, and the name was changed to Ute Park in 196725.
Development of this site as a children’s park began in 1968, when play elements were installed,
including a metal fantasy sculpture created by local artist Lou Wille and other elements such as a
mining tunnel, rope climbing web, and teeter totters. In 1981, when the City annexed Ute Park, as the
parcel was then called, an additional 0.38 acres were added to the park parcel.
the City of Aspen reporting on conditions of the community’s cemeteries, including Ute Cemetery20.
Sidhu’s report surveyed grave markers and documented information from inscriptions as well
as condition of stonework, woodwork, metalwork, and other elements. This report also included
restoration recommendations and priorities for Ute Cemetery. Inspired by Sidhu’s study and a
desire to prioritize historic preservation, Aspen’s Historic Preservation Commission initiated an
effort in the late 1990s to restore Ute Cemetery. Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. was engaged
by the commission in 2001 to inventory the site and develop a restoration plan which would guide
subsequent phases of work to preserve and stabilize historic elements and provide access and
historical interpretation while honoring the cemetery’s rustic mountain character21. In this initial
effort, gravesites were identified and landmarked, overgrown vegetation was selectively cleared,
soft-surface footpaths were improved to provide visitor access throughout the site, and interpretive
materials were developed.
Also in 2001, Ute Cemetery was formally designated to the Colorado State Register of Historic
Properties, and in 2002 it was added to the National Register of Historic Places22. Preparation of
these applications were supported by a $3,400 grant from the Colorado State Historical Society.
In 2002, the City secured a $100,000 grant from the Colorado State Historical Fund toward the
cost of stonework restoration. Badly damaged gravestones were transported to a shop in Greeley,
Colorado, where they were cleaned and carefully repaired before being replaced in the cemetery,
while other gravestones were rehabilitated on site. Volunteer workdays took place in 2002 and 2003.
A re-dedication ceremony for Ute Cemetery took place on Memorial Day in 2003. Efforts continued
that year with the installation of a brick and sandstone entry gateway, stone monuments inscribed
with the names of all known burials, and further planning for future management actions. The low,
natural, picket fence along the Ute Avenue side of the site was installed to mark the cemetery’s
boundary, and an interpretive brochure relating historical information was developed. This project
was recognized by the Preservation Honor Award from Aspen’s Historic Preservation Commission in
2003, and the consulting team received state and national honor awards in 2005 from the Colorado
and national chapters of the American Society of Landscape Architects23.
In 2024, Tatanka Historical Associates was engaged by the City of Aspen to complete field
reconnaissance and archival research for a revised preservation plan as an update to the 2001 plan24.
The resulting 2024 report provides detailed conditional information and documentation as well
as recommendations for continued maintenance, restoration, security, and interpretation for Ute
Cemetery.
20 Sidhu, Vinita. “Report on the Conditions of the Cemeteries of the City of Aspen with Recommendations for Improvements,” City of Aspen
Community Development Department, 1996. Aspen Historical Society, Archive Record 1966.044.0001
21 “Historic Preservation Plan, Ute Cemetery, Aspen, Colorado,” Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc., November 2001.
22 Havlen, Naomi. “Ute Cemetery Gains National Recognition,” Aspen Times, April 15, 2002. URL
23 “ASLA 2005 Professional Awards, General Design Award of Honor, Ute Cemetery Restoration, Aspen, CO,” 2005, accessed February 19, 2025. asla.org/awards/2005/05winners/240.html URL
24 “Historic Preservation Plan, Ute Cemetery, Aspen, Colorado,” Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc., February 16, 2024.
25 “Ute Park History,” Laserfiche Records, City of Aspen, June 19, 2012, \PARKS HISTORY\A. Ute Park History.
HISTORY|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 25CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS24Image Credit: City of Aspen Staff Ute Park
Today, natural aspen groves with a wildflower-studded understory blanket the park. In April, the pale
lavender pasque flowers, beloved by locals who delight in this confirmation of the arrival of spring,
provide the first blooms of the season. In 2022, the park’s aged play structures were replaced with
two new play elements designed for ages 5-12 to meet current safety standards, and a picnic table
was installed near the play area. This park offers families and people of all ages a natural space in
which to explore and connect with the natural world, enjoy quiet play, and receive the benefits of
spending time in nature. Trails through the park provide connections to other trails and footpaths in
the vicinity.
The Wheeler Ditch is the primary feature of the riverfront “ditch” portion of Ute Park. It is thought
that City ownership of this land may have been established with the 1882 construction of the ditch.
On May 5, 1882, Mayor Tanfield and a group of citizens incorporated the Aspen Irrigation and Ditch
Company (AIDC) and initiated the digging of a ditch at the end of Waters Avenue to supply the
townspeople with affordable water and protect the community from a monopoly on potable water
after B. Clark Wheeler claimed ownership of both Ute Springs and the original community ditch
that conveyed this water through early Aspen26. Ute Springs historically flowed from the ground at
the base of Aspen Mountain near present day Glory Hole Park and was likely a summer campsite of
the Ute People who lived in the Roaring Fork Valley seasonally for more than 800 years prior to the
arrival of European explorers and prospectors. The springs were also the site of the first permanent
prospector encampment in 1879 and the origination of the City of Aspen.
While the Wheeler Ditch was related to activities of B. Clark Wheeler, it is a misnomer because it
was not his ditch and was in fact created to subvert Wheeler’s unscrupulous business behavior as he
sought to profit from the water of Ute Springs27. Wheeler and the City went rounds during 1882 until
City Council granted right of way to the AIDC ditch, effectively nullifying Wheeler’s waterworks at
Ute Springs. Later, in 1885, AIDC built a lower ditch down Durant from the Waters Avenue inflow. In
1886, due to squalid conditions in the City’s open ditches, the Aspen Water Company was formed by
D. R. C. Brown and H. C. Cowenhoven, and mains were installed throughout town to convey clean
water sourced from Castle and Hunter Creeks. In 1889, Ute Springs ceased to serve as an important
water source for the young city because by that time, development of underground mining works
within Aspen Mountain had disrupted its flow28. Today, the Wheeler Ditch still flows into town,
supplying base flows for the City’s stormwater system, Pedestrian Mall streams, and limited irrigation.
Recently, the City of Aspen entered into several non-diversion agreements with the Colorado Water
Conservation Board: singular agreements in 2013 and 2014 (enacted when streamflow in the Roaring
Fork River is less than 32 cfs at the Wheeler Ditch headgate) and a 5-in-10-year agreement in 2016 (a
longer-term solution that boosts streamflow during five of ten years)29. This streamflow restoration
project in which the City reduces water volume diverted into the Wheeler Ditch while protecting and
maintaining its water rights, was developed by the City of Aspen and the Colorado Water Trust to
restore streamflow to the Roaring Fork River in the reach that flows through Aspen during dry years.
Funding for this project comes from Pitkin County Healthy Rivers and Streams Board; ESPN, Inc.;
Aspen Skiing Company’s Environment Foundation; and Bonneville Environmental Foundation.
A vehicular access corridor extends from Ute Avenue Trail across the property to the river bluff as
required by City of Aspen Utilities Department which operates and maintains the Wheeler Ditch.
Today, the “ditch” portion of Ute Park also provides trail connections via its Wheeler Ditch Trail, as
well as fishing access to the Roaring Fork River.
BENEDICT PARCEL
This 0.317-acre, triangle-shaped parcel is adjacent to both Ute Cemetery and Ute Park where these parcels
come together at their northern boundaries. The northern boundary of the Triangle parcel adjoins private
residential property. The parcel’s natural landscape is vegetated with sagebrush and serviceberry shrublands
and aspen stands. This undeveloped parcel extends open space protection to the native plant ecosystems and
wildlife habitat that are contiguous across the City properties included in this management plan.
The City of Aspen acquired the Benedict parcel in 1972 as a land donation from Fritz and Fabi Benedict. This
gift was issued with the following provision: “provided, however, that party of the second part shall not use
the subject property for any purpose other than as a public park and shall not have the right to construct
any buildings thereon. A violation of either of these restrictions shall cause all title conveyed hereunder to
revert automatically to party of the first part. These restrictions shall remain effective for a period of 20 years
following the last to die of Fredric Benedict, Fabienne Benedict and their now living children.” (Book 260, Page
632).
26 “The Meeting Thursday Night,” The Aspen Times (weekly), May 6, 1882. URL
27 “Troubled Waters, The Ute Spring Controversy,” Aspen Times (weekly), September 16, 1882. URL
28 Tim Cooney, “Aspen’s Rich History of Befouling the Roaring Fork River,” Aspen Journalism, February 7, 2020. URL
29 Sackett, Heather. “Aspen Journalism: Ranchers, Aspen Share Water with the Environment.” Aspen Times, July 15, 2024. URL
AQUISITIONBACKGROUND|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 27CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS26
The Ute Cemetery management plan encompasses three adjacent City properties: Ute Cemetery, Ute Park, and the
Benedict parcel. The acquisition background of each property follows.
Acquisition History 0 ft.100 ft. N
ACQUISITIONBACKGROUND
1971
1972
1958
1981
Acquisition
Facts
• The Ute Cemetery parcel,
was purchased by the City
of Aspen from James C.
Blanning, Jr. on October 21,
1971, for ten dollars.
• In March 1956, the land
that would become Ute Park
was surveyed. In August
1958, the BLM issued
patent #118578 to the City
of Aspen for the 2.2-acre
parcel known at that time as
Bavaria Park.
• The 0.317-acre Benedict
parcel was gifted to the
City of Aspen in 1972 by
Aspen locals Fritz and Fabi
Benedict.
Ute Cemetery
Charles A. Hallam, part-owner and
superintendent of the Smuggler
Mine, was the original owner
of the land that would become
Ute Cemetery at the time of the
first burial in June 1880. A total
of approximately 175-200 graves
were established at Ute Cemetery
during the primary period of
active use between 1880 and the
1930s.
The Ute Cemetery parcel, 4.227
acres in size, was purchased by
the City of Aspen from James C.
Blanning, Jr. on October 21, 1971,
for ten dollars. This land is zoned
P, park (17UT). (Book 259 page 88;
260/572).
Ute Park
During Aspen’s early years,
ownership of this land and its
surroundings was unclear; many
individual requests were made to
the U.S. government for titles to
land in this general area east of
the City of Aspen.
In March 1956, the land that would
become Ute Park was surveyed,
and a plat was made by the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management
(BLM). In August 1958, the BLM
issued patent #118578 to the City
of Aspen for the 2.2-acre parcel
known at that time as Bavaria
Park.
By a 1966 resolution, the parcel
was dedicated for use by the
public for park and recreation
purposes. The name was
changed to Ute Park in 1967, and
have the right to construct any
buildings thereon. A violation of
either of these restrictions shall
cause all title conveyed hereunder
to revert automatically to party of
the first part. These restrictions
shall remain effective for a period
of 20 years following the last to
die of Fredric Benedict, Fabienne
Benedict and their now living
children.” (Book 260, Page 632).
development of the park with
children’s play structures began in
1968.
In 1981, an additional 0.38 acres
was added to the park at the
time of the annexation of Ute
Children’s Park, as the parcel
was then called, into the City of
Aspen. This was accomplished via
Ordinance 72, series of 1981 (Book
418, Page 945).
A long, narrow, riverfront section
of this parcel includes the historic
Wheeler Ditch, a project of a
citizen’s group led by Mayor
Tanfield that incorporated the
Aspen Irrigation and Ditch
Company (AIDC) on May 5, 1882,
and built the ditch that same
year. Sometime later, the AIDC
ditch became known as the
Wheeler Ditch, a misnomer as
this ditch was built to address the
unscrupulous business dealings
of B. Clark Wheeler who claimed
ownership of Ute Springs, its
water, and associated ditch as
he attempted to monopolize the
potable water business in early
Aspen.
Today, Ute Park consists of a total
of 3.027 acres.
Benedict Parcel
This 0.317-acre parcel was gifted
to the City of Aspen in 1972
by Aspen locals Fritz and Fabi
Benedict. This gift was made with
the following provision: “provided,
however, that party of the second
part shall not use the subject
property for any purpose other
than as a public park and shall not
PLANNINGPROCESS|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 29CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS28
March 2023 - Feb 2024 Tatanka and Associates
research and production of Preservation Plan
September 2024 - April 2025 Peak Ecological de-velopment of Natural Resource Baseline Report
September 2023 - March 2024 Sopris Engineering
Survey and Title Work
January 2024 - June 2025 Staff and consultant
development of draft management plan
July 2025 Open Space and Trails Board review of Draft Plan
July 2025 - August 2025 Draft Revisions
September 2025- Draft Released for Public Comment
September 2025 -Stakeholder comments solicited
October 2025- Public and Stakeholder Comment closes
November 2025 OSTB recommendation
December 2025 City Council Adoption
Subject expert analysis, existing conditions, public comments, input from staff and the City of Aspen Open Space and
Trails Board, and stakeholders’ comments have been incorporated in the development of this management plan. This
planning effort supports the implementation of ongoing projects and plans and advances new action items. This plan is
a near- to mid-range planning tool to budget for management actions to preserve this place for future generations of
people and wildlife.
PLANNINGPROCESSAND
PUBLICINPUT
Research and Analysis
Plan Development
Public Comment
Final Plan Revisions
and Adoption
Research and Analysis
The development of the Ute
Cemetery management plan
began with identifying experts in
the fields of historical analysis,
ecological evaluation, and plat
and title research. This work
combined with past research and
plans developed for the space
helped form the framework and
background information on which
the plan is built. A complete
record of the past and present
documents can be found in the
appendix to the management
plan.
Plan Development
Utilizing the existing conditions
data, past and present reports,
staff and a consultant compiled
a draft management plan
with Action Items to guide
management of the Park. The first
draft of the Management Plan was
presented to the Open Space and
Trails Board for comment and
direction on July 17th, 2025. The
July 17th meeting included a
site visit to the Ute properties.
Following the meeting staff
made revisions based on the
feedback from the board and site
observations.
Public Comment
Following the review, the draft Management
Plan was released for public comment. Public
comment was facilitated though an online
survey during a one month period beginning on
September 15th, 2025. Parks and Open Space
advertised the comment period with on-site
posters, fliers and online outreach efforts to
highlight elements of the plan and encourage
the public to provide comments. Responses
were collected from community members.
Complete survey responses are in Appendix W.
with highlights summarized in Section 3.02.
Stakeholders were contacted directly for
comment on the draft management plan
and their responses are in Appendix W, with
highlights summarized in section 3.
Final Plan Revisions and Adoption
Following the draft plan public comment period,
staff discussed the feedback received and
updated the plan with recommended revisions
for Board review. The final plan was reviewed
and recommended for adoption by the Open
Space and Trails Board (OSTB) on November
20th of 2025. The final plan will be adopted by
the City Council ____________________. Image Credit: City of Aspen Staff Independence Pass from Ute Cemetery Courtesy of Aspen Historical Society Aspen town site amended April 3, 1888.
MANAGEMENTPLANGOALS|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 31CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS30
MANAGEMENTPLANGOALS
This management plan will guide stewardship and decision-making for the planning area into the future. The following
goals are based on the City of Aspen’s open space program mission, the nature of the planning area, and public feed-
back collected during the 2025 planning process. This plan will be updated every 10 years. Goals of this plan include:Photo Credit : Anders Weiss Aerial Ute Cemetery
OUTDOOR RECREATION
Provide and maintain safe and enjoyable outdoor
recreation opportunities.
INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT
Partner with the City of Aspen Utilities Department
for the maintenance and management of the Wheeler
Ditch. Continue management of the trail and
parking infrastructure for safe access to the site and
surrounding public land.
INTERPRETATION AND EDUCATION
Provide educational opportunities regarding the values
of Ute Cemetery, its historical, cultural, and visual
resources, and its significance to the history of Aspen.
NATURAL RESOURCES
Preserve and enhance the natural resources, including
maintaining and promoting healthy ecosystems and
their essential components and processes.
HISTORICAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES
Protect, preserve, and interpret the historical and
cultural resources, specifically those within Ute
Cemetery.
EXISTINGCONDITIONS|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 33CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS32
0 ft.100 ft. N
EXISTINGCONDITIONS Photo Credit: Anders Weiss Aerial of properties Roa
r
ing
Fork River Ut
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
2.01
PLANNING AREA
OVERALL SITE
The planning area is bounded to
the south by Ute Avenue and to
the east by the Benedict Building
(Callahan Subdivision, professional
condominium building). To
the northeast, the property is
bounded by the Roaring Fork
River, and to the northwest and
west it abuts private residential
properties of the Ten-Ten Ute
Subdivision (also known as Ute
Place). The landscape of the
planning area consists of glacial
moraine, a remnant floodplain
bench, and a riverine riparian zone
along the Roaring Fork River.
Primary features within the
planning area include a historic
cemetery established in 1880,
play structures, a picnic table, a
raw water ditch and associated
infrastructure, soft-surface
footpaths, paved multi-purpose
trails, viewsheds of surrounding
mountains and the river, fishing
access, and various natural areas
harboring native habitats and
ecosystems including a riverfront
riparian area. Two small parking
areas serving the planning area
are located off Ute Avenue at Ute
Cemetery and Ute Park.
Other amenities in the near
vicinity of the planning area
include the Ute Trail, Aspen Club
Trail, Ute Avenue Trail, Wheeler
Ditch Trail, and Ajax Park. The Ute
Trail is a popular hike and summer
access point for Aspen Mountain.
The Aspen Club and Ute Avenue
Trails are popular recreational and
commuter trails. Other properties
in the near vicinity of the planning
area include the Aspen Club, the
Benedict Building, and private
residential lots of the Ten-Ten Ute
Subdivision. Ajax Park is located
to the west of the planning area,
and provides parking, picnic
tables, and access to Ute Mesa
Trail.
Public fishing easements exist on
private property upstream and
downstream from the riverfront
areas of Ute Park. There are
existing undeveloped trail
easements on the eastern bank
of the Roaring Fork River across
from Ute Park.
The planning area addressed in this management plan is a 7.571-acre area comprised of three City of Aspen properties:
Ute Cemetery Open Space, Ute Park and the Triangle parcel. These adjacent properties are located between Ute Ave-
nue and the Roaring Fork River, east of downtown Aspen.
Planning Area
UTE
CEMETERY
BENEDICT
PARCEL
UTE
PARK
EXISTINGCONDITIONS|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 35CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS34 Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff Ute Cemetery Entry Monument
UTE CEMETERY
Ute Cemetery’s southern
boundary along Ute Avenue is
roughly delineated by a wooden
picket fence, the western and
eastern boundaries are marked
by a split rail fence, and the
northern boundary has no physical
delineation. At the main entrance
to the cemetery, brick entry
monuments identify Ute Cemetery
with an inscribed sandstone block
that reads “Ute Cemetery 1880.”
Inside the entry monuments, two
large sandstone monuments list
the names of those buried in the
cemetery: one lists the names of
civilians and the other lists the
names of Civil War veterans. The
total number of graves in the
cemetery is estimated at 185-200.
A 2001 site survey by Tatanka
Historical Associates documented
78 marked graves and evidence
of at least 107 unmarked graves.
Grave markers are primarily stone,
metal, or wooden monuments.
Other physical elements related
to grave sites include decorative
plot enclosures made of various
materials, and remnant patches
of non-native, naturalized, pale
yellow irises and lilac shrubs that
originate from historic plantings
at some of the graves.
Inside the cemetery parcel beyond
the name monuments, a small park
sign provides regulations and
conduct guidelines for visitors,
as well as a brochure holder for
an interpretive brochure which
was developed in 2001. From
this point, soft-surface footpaths
provide access throughout
the cemetery, some of which
connect to paths in Ute Park
at the cemetery’s eastern end.
The remnant brick foundation
of a small building thought to
have been a caretaker’s shed
is located in the northwestern
corner of the cemetery. Several
large, old Douglas Fir trees stand
in the cemetery, surrounded by
aspen groves, oak thickets, and
montane shrublands with patches
of low-growing native grasses
and forbes, including pasque
flowers, buckwheat, and lupines.
Because of its cemetery function,
the nature of this sacred ground
preserves a largely undisturbed,
natural landscape where native
flora blankets the rugged, hilly
glacial moraine. The site’s 185-200
hand-dug gravesites have largely
been blended into the landscape
by the effects of time.
Ute Avenue Trail, a paved
multi-use trail, parallels Ute
Avenue from Original Street
to the Benedict Building, a
segment of which runs along the
southwestern perimeter of the
Ute Cemetery parcels, although
the majority of the trail is located
in the public right-of-way. A gravel
parking area off Ute Avenue at
the cemetery provides head-in
parking for about six vehicles.
UTE PARK
Ute Park’s natural setting features
aspen groves and open spaces
with two small play elements
designed for young children
and a picnic table. Soft-surface
footpaths provide access through
the park to the play elements and
connections with the Ute Avenue
Trail, Aspen Club Trail, Wheeler
Ditch Trail, and Ute Cemetery
paths. A metal sculpture created
by Lou Wille is located in the
southwest corner of the park and
was designed for children to climb
and play on. The primary entrance
to Ute Park is marked by a
monument and plaque identifying
the park and dedicating the space
to the Ute People.
A split rail fence marks the
western border of the park,
adjacent to Ute Cemetery. A
remnant section of split rail fence
with a wooden gate exists in
the eastern portion of the park;
the Wheeler Ditch Trail passes
through a gap in this fence. A
short section of barbed wire fence
mounted on t-stakes extends
from the northern end of the
split rail fence downslope to the
Roaring Fork River. A vehicle
access corridor passes through
the park from Ute Avenue to the
edge of the bluff above the river;
this corridor provides access
for the City of Aspen Utilities
Department, which operates and
maintains the Wheeler Ditch. The
Ute Avenue end of this access
corridor is blocked by a moveable
buck and rail fence section to
prevent public vehicular access.
At the southeast corner of
Ute Park, the Ute Avenue Trail
transitions to the Aspen Club
Trail, both of which are paved,
multi-use trails. The Aspen Club
Trail follows the northeast edge
of the park parcel adjacent to the
Benedict Building property. There
is fishing access to the Roaring
Fork River from the riverfront
segment of Ute Park.
A long, narrow, riverfront section
of the Ute Park parcel includes
the Wheeler Ditch from its intake
at the Roaring Fork River to
a point where the ditch flows
into an underground culvert
(approximately 350 linear feet).
Ditch elements include intake,
headgate, by-pass, and culvert
infrastructures. Sandbags and
other related materials are
stored on site in the vicinity of
the headgate. The Wheeler Ditch
supplies raw water to the City’s
stormwater system, Pedestrian
Mall ditches, and limited irrigation
uses. This historic ditch originated
in 1882 when it was constructed
to supply water to the early City
of Aspen. In addition to the ditch,
another important function of this
portion of the Ute Park parcel
is to provide a buffer between
the private properties located
upslope and the sensitive riparian
ecosystem along the river.
The Wheeler Ditch Trail runs
parallel to the river along the
length of Ute Park’s northeastern
boundary, from its eastern
terminus at the Aspen Club Trail
through various easements to
the west on private properties to
its western terminus at the Ute
Avenue Trail. A fishing access
easement provides access for
anglers along this riverfront
segment.
BENEDICT PARCEL
This small open space parcel,
just 0.317 acres in size, preserves
a portion of contiguous
undeveloped land between the
northern boundaries of the Ute
Cemetery and Ute Park parcels.
The northwestern boundary
of this parcel abuts private
residential property of the Ute
Place subdivision. Its primary
feature is the native shrubland
vegetation community which links
habitat areas on surrounding
parcels. This parcel was given to
the City of Aspen in 1972 by Fritz
and Fabi Benedict, who stipulated
that the land would be used as
a public park only, and that no
building could be constructed on
the property.
Natural
Landscape
Because of its cemetery
function, the nature of this
sacred ground preserves a
largely undisturbed, natural
landscape where native
flora blankets the rugged,
hilly glacial moraine
Wheeler
Ditch
The Wheeler Ditch
supplies raw water to the
City’s stormwater system,
Pedestrian Mall ditches, and
limited irrigation uses. This
historic ditch originated
in 1882 when it was
constructed to supply water
to the early City of Aspen.
EXISTINGCONDITIONS|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 37CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS36
Native
Riparian
Habitat
“Ute Cemetery open
space… provides a patch
of relatively healthy native
riparian habitat used by
breeding songbirds, small
mammals, and human-
tolerant large mammals.” –
(2024 Ecological Report) Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff Pasque Flower
2.02 NATURAL
RESOURCES
Ecological Context
While the planning area, at
7.571-acres, is relatively small
in size, its largely natural and
undeveloped condition provides
viable wildlife habitat. The most
important conservation value
of the site, made up of Ute
Cemetery, Ute Park, and the
Triangle Parcel, is the connection
it provides between extensive
habitat on Richmond Ridge to the
south and the Roaring Fork River.
The adjacency of the remnant
native woodlands, shrublands, and
riparian corridor habitats supports
songbirds, small mammals, and
meso-carnivores, as well as
seasonal use by mule deer and
Rocky Mountain elk. Restoration
and enhancement of this small
area of native habitats can provide
a valuable refuge for wildlife in
this area where effectiveness
of most native habitat has been
diminished by development.
The following natural resources
information was described in a
2024 report provided by wildlife
and ecological consultants, based
on site surveys and analyses.
Physical Setting
Soils and Geology
Three soil map units are
associated with the planning area.
Urraca, moist-Mergel complex
occurs over the majority of the
area, Ansel-Anvik association
occurs over less than one percent
of the area, and the Roaring Fork
River comprises the remainder.
Soils are deep or very deep
(40 inches to greater than 60
inches to bedrock), well-drained,
moderately permeable, formed
in glacial deposits, and occur on
gently sloping alluvial fans and
terraces. Soil textures range from
clay loam to sand, and are very
rocky, dark in color, and high in
organic matter content, while
moraine deposits range from silt
to boulders.
Vegetation
Plant communities
Vegetation conditions in the
planning area reflect the cultural
use of the cemetery portion, in
which vegetation was cleared
and naturally regrew on grave
sites during the cemetery’s
period of active use primarily 90
to 145 years ago. Landforms and
vegetation along the riparian
corridor and on the site’s rocky
knolls were likely untouched.
Vegetation documentation took
place between mid-June and
mid-September 2024, and three
pairs of vegetation alliances
and associations were noted on
a total of 7.2 acres: Narrowleaf
Cottonwood Riparian Forest,
Narrowleaf Cottonwood-Blue
Spruce/ Alder Riparian Woodland;
Quaking Aspen Rocky Mountain
Forest & Woodland, Quaking
Aspen/Serviceberry Forest;
and Mountain Big Sagebrush
Mixed Steppe & Shrubland,
Serviceberry-Mountain Big
Sagebrush Shrubland. Water or
developed areas including the
river, playground, paths, and
parking comprise the remaining
0.36 acres.
Overall, forests and woodlands
cover about 75% of the planning
area, the majority being aspen /
serviceberry, with a few mature
Douglas fir trees in upland areas,
and cottonwood stands and
scattered blue spruce trees in
the riparian area. These forests
and woodlands support a diverse
understory of native shrubs,
forbs and grasses including
serviceberry, snowberry, common
juniper, American vetch, aspen
daisy, and Richardson geranium
in the aspen forests. Understory
plants in the riparian zone include
alder, red osier dogwood, various
willows, sedges, round leaf
wintergreen, cow parsnip, and
horsetail. Mountain shrubland,
covering 1.42 acres, is dominated
by serviceberry and mountain
big sagebrush shrubs, and
includes chokeckerry, rabbitbrush,
snowberry, and bitterbrush.
Understory vegetation in the
shrubland areas is characterized
by Oregon grape, sulphur flower,
Rocky Mountain penstemon,
lambstongue groundsel, elk
sedge, junegrass, and Nelson
needlegrass.
Non-native Plants and Native
Plants of Conservation
Concern
Non-native species present within
the planning area include: reed
canarygrass, redtop, toadflax, and
various non-native pasture grasses
such as smooth brome and redtop.
The report notes state and global
conservation status of the primary
vegetation associations. The
Narrowleaf Cottonwood – Blue
Spruce/Alder Riparian Woodland
is rated as globally vulnerable
and state apparently secure. The
Quaking Aspen/Serviceberry
Forest is rated globally and
state apparently secure. The
Serviceberry-Mountain Big
Sagebrush Shrubland is ranked as
state apparently secure/secure
but is not ranked at a global level.
Ecological Functionality of
Vegetation Communities
Functional assessment of the
riparian habitat was provided.
Found along the edge of the
river, the riparian ecosystem is a
transitional zone between land
and water that supports rich
biodiversity, water quality, and
stable riverbanks. The riparian
ecosystem is also an important
wildlife corridor and supports
ecological and recreational
benefits for people. Standard
methods were used to assess
riparian corridor health to
illuminate whether this area
is resilient to changes such as
high flow events and to evaluate
the condition and extent of this
habitat type within the planning
area. These findings were used
to provide recommendations for
further enhancing the ecological
integrity of the riparian corridor.
Results revealed that the riparian
corridor is functional-at-risk.
Vegetation is dominated by
natives and is adequately diverse,
with a multi-layered tree canopy.
Streambanks are adequately
stable, noxious weeds are not
overabundant, and no insect
outbreaks or diseases were noted.
Deficiencies noted include one
large canopy gap and a social trail
down a steep embankment to the
river. Additional impacts include
adjacent manicured lawns and
roads from which nutrients and
pesticides in runoff may affect
the riparian habitat. However,
the Ute Cemetery open space
still provides a patch of relatively
healthy native riparian habitat
used by breeding songbirds, small
mammals, and human-tolerant
large mammals.
No federally listed, Forest
Service or BLM Sensitive,
or State rare plant species
tracked by the Colorado Natural
Heritage Program (CNHP) were
documented during 2024 field
visits. None of the three nearby
Potential Conservation Areas
mapped by the CNHP overlap
with the planning area. Nine
species of Colorado State listed
noxious weeds were identified
during 2024 field visits: toadflax,
oxeye daisy, common tansy,
plumeless thistle, houndstongue,
scentless chamomile, mullein,
cheatgrass, and blubous
bluegrass.
A Floristic Quality Assessment
(FQA) was conducted to measure
the site’s ecological health based
on its native plant species. This
assessment provides information
that is essential for managing
open spaces effectively and
supporting their biodiversity. The
report provides a comprehensive
list of vascular plant species
documented in the planning area,
including native and non-native
species. This information was
uploaded to iNaturalist, a large
database used for ecological
research and conservation
efforts. The FQA results reveal
levels of disturbance sensitivity
among plants present on site. Ute
Cemetery Open Space is host
to 132 vascular plant species, of
which six are trees, 24 are shrubs/
subshrubs, 27 are perennial
graminoids, 59 are perennial forbs,
one is a fern ally, 13 are annual/
biennial forbs, and two are annual
graminoids. Of these, 28% are
non-native. The report notes that
“For such a small property, Ute
Cemetery Open Space supports
an incredible number of plant
species.” The FQA results rate the
planning area as a moderate to
high quality natural area.
EXISTINGCONDITIONS|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 39CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS38 image credit: City of Aspen Staff Vegetation Benedict Parcel
Wildlife
Habitat
“While Ute Cemetery
Open Space is a small
property, it provides some
valuable wildlife habitat
among its patchy native
plant communities.” (2024
Ecological Report)
Connectivity
The property’s greatest value to wildlife lies largely in its
juxtaposition between the forested public land on Richmond
Ridge to the south and the Roaring Fork River to the north,
providing connectivity for animals moving through the area and
accessing resources at the river and in adjacent forests and
shrublands. Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff Daffodils at Arthur Benett Glasser’s grave
The pale, yellow iris was noted
as a plant species of historical
significance, as an heirloom
cultivar of uncertain origin first
introduced to North America in
1813. This iris is present around
many grave sites and was likely
introduced by early Aspenites.
Although previously reported as
present, no historically planted
lilac shrubs were observed.
Pollinator Habitat
The diverse array of native
wildflowers at Ute Cemetery
Open Space provides valuable
habitat for pollinators such
as native bees, butterflies,
moths, flies, beetles, bats, and
other species. These animals
are crucial to pollination, seed
dispersal, and genetic diversity
among plants. Recent declines in
pollinator populations due to a
host of factors make it critical to
support pollinators in managing
conservation landscapes. Best
practices developed by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and
U.S. Department of the Interior
(2015) emphasize the importance
of managing for long-term
productivity of wildflower-
rich foraging habitats and the
provision of essential nesting and
overwintering sites. Management
strategies include preserving
undisturbed open ground and
woody debris for bee nesting,
supporting host plants for
butterflies, and offering refuges
for overwintering insects.
Wildlife
While Ute Cemetery Open Space
is a small property, it provides
some valuable wildlife habitat
among its patchy native plant
communities. Wildlife surveys
were conducted on August 6,
2024, along a 700-meter transect
that intersected the property’s
major habitat types. Directly
observed wildlife was recorded
in addition to wildlife sign, such
as beds, nests, fur or feathers,
burrows, dens, scat, prey remains,
food caches, markings on the
ground or on trees, and sounds.
A raptor-specific survey was also
conducted. Survey results show
that the planning area provides
limited habitat for a variety of bird
and mammal species.
Fifty-seven individuals of 23
bird species were detected,
including many that tolerate
human activity, such as American
robins, black-billed magpies, and
black-capped chickadees, as well
as a few sensitive species such
as dusky flycatcher. Most of the
bird species detected utilize a
wide variety of habitat types,
while a few with narrow habitat
requirements were also detected.
Birds of conservation concern
that are known or have potential
to occur at Ute Cemetery
Open Space include bald eagle,
northern pygmy-owl, band-tailed
pigeon, Lewis’s woodpecker, and
Virginia’s warbler.
Thirty-two detections of nine
mammal species were noted in
the planning area during surveys,
including beaver, black bear, elk,
coyote, golden-mantled ground
squirrel, least chipmunk, mule
deer, northern pocket gopher, and
red squirrel. Deer and elk use the
site during non-winter months,
including during transitions
between winter and summer
ranges. Nine occurrences of mule
deer and thirteen occurrences
of elk were detected on site,
and all of the elk sign was older,
possibly from early spring or the
previous fall. Nine bat species
may occur here as well, based
on their habitat preferences and
distribution.
No reptile sampling was
conducted in the planning area,
although a single reptile species,
western terrestrial garter snake
likely occurs on the property.
Species of conservation
concern
A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
IPaC system list generated for
the site and its near surroundings
showed that no federally
protected species are expected
to occur on the property and
that no designated critical
habitat exists for any listed
species on or adjacent to the
property. The list noted three
insect species that should be
considered from a management
standpoint (silverspot, Suckley’s
cuckoo bumble bee, and monarch
butterfly), however their specific
habitat needs do not presently
occur on the property. The report
includes a list of 83 wildlife
species known or suspected to
occur in the planning area, and
19 of them are designated as
species of conservation concern.
While the small property may
provide home ranges for just
a few small animals, it likely
provides only a fraction of the
territory most birds and mammals
require. The property’s greatest
value to wildlife lies largely
in its juxtaposition between
the forested public land on
Richmond Ridge to the south and
the Roaring Fork River to the
north, providing connectivity for
animals moving through the area
and accessing resources at the
river and in adjacent forests and
shrublands.
Plant
Species
“For such a small property,
Ute Cemetery Open Space
supports an incredible
number of plant species.”
(2024 Ecological Report)
EXISTINGCONDITIONS|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 41CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS40
Roaring Fork River at Ute Park Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff 2.03 VISUAL
RESOURCES
The planning area provides im-
portant visual resources related to
its cultural history, natural history,
and specific location. These re-
sources span landscape-scale sce-
nic views to finer-scale elements
such as the historic headstones
and pasque flowers scattered
across the open space.
On a larger scale, viewsheds from
various points within the planning
area include the ridge of Shadow
Mountain, Aspen Mountain and
the rock outcroppings at the
top of Ute Trail, Mount Shimer,
Smuggler Mountain, and views
of the Roaring Fork River. Before
the existence of today’s urban
forest and the growth of aspen
stands and native shrubs within
the cemetery, historic views from
Ute Cemetery down Ute Avenue
and to the east end of town were
once clear and unobscured, as
evidenced by historic photos
taken from the southwest corner
of the site where one can see
gravestones in a plot enclosure
in the foreground, and modest
cabins and shacks that once lined
the street in the background.
The planning area itself
provides and preserves valuable
greenspace views of the park and
open space parcels that offer
access to these clean, safe, natural
spaces. The value of the intact,
natural landforms within Ute
Cemetery and Ute Park is notable,
given that much of the valley
floor within the City of Aspen has
been altered by grading or other
development activities. Results
of glacial action that occurred as
recently as 11,000 years ago can
be seen in the hilly terrain and
ridge at the top of the cemetery
parcel. Flat areas in the eastern
portion of Ute Park are the result
of ancient river action in creating
this floodplain bench. Below the
bluff, the river continues to carve
its way among rounded river
rocks where one can watch the
changes in seasonal streamflow
and observe wildlife that inhabit
the riverine ecosystem such as
American dippers and great blue
herons.
The visual resources of the Ute
Cemetery parcel are significant,
as this site is a uniquely important
window into the cultural heritage
of the Aspen community.
Like those of other mountain
communities of mining origins,
this unmanicured cemetery with
its informal layout and natural
vegetation speaks to the rugged
individuals who lived and died
here in Aspen’s early days.
The humble gravestones and
modestly ornate remnants of
plot enclosures, the many young
children’s graves and the rows
of Civil War veterans, graves
that are unmarked or simply
delineated by river stones, the
hardy irises that were planted to
honor the deceased… these visual
elements are vivid reminders of
our community’s past, allowing
visitors to envision and connect
with Aspen’s local heritage.
Several towering Douglas fir trees
within the cemetery are likely the
same ones that appear in historic
photographs of the site, and for
which the graveyard was initially
named, Evergreen Cemetery.
Similarly, the Wheeler Ditch,
constructed in 1882, has
associated infrastructure elements
from an assortment of time
periods. One can see in the river
rock intake structures and the
weathered, grown-in road cut
ascending the bluff above the
river (now part of the Wheeler
Ditch Trail), that portions of these
primary features were built by
hand over 140 years ago. These
visual resources tell stories of
early Aspen.
In the upland portion of Ute Park,
the aspen forest with its light-
filled openings and wildflower-
studded understory invites
children to explore this visually-
appealing natural environment,
fostering their innate affinity for
the natural world. The seasonal
beauty of lavender pasque flowers
and golden fall foliage underscore
the value of the site’s visual
resources.
Markers for Civil War soldiers at the Ute Cemetery, 1966.Courtesy of Aspen Historical Society : Hiser Collection
EXISTINGCONDITIONS|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 43CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS42
Lou Wille Sculpture Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff Metal Burial Enclosure Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff Jaqueline Penz Grave 2025 Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff Jaqueline Penz Grave circa 1895 Courtesy of Aspen Historical Society 2.04 HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
Historical resources within the
planning area occur primarily on
the Ute Cemetery and Ute Park
parcels. Ute Cemetery was listed
on the Colorado State Register of
Historic Properties in 2001 and on
the National Register of Historic
Sites in 2002.
Within the Ute Cemetery parcel,
the primary historical resources
consist of 185-200 graves, of which
78 are marked and approximately
130 are unmarked. The marked
graves include those of 37 Civil
War veterans. Grave markers and
related elements such as plot
enclosures and existing iris beds
persisting from original plantings
are significant to the historical
and cultural integrity of Ute
Cemetery.
Other historical resources on
this parcel include the remains
of a brick foundation of what was
thought to be a caretaker’s shed,
located in the northwest corner of
the parcel, and the walking paths
which are thought to date back to
well over a century ago and were
developed through natural use by
people accessing the cemetery. In
addition, there are several large
Douglas fir trees on the cemetery
site that are estimated to be more
than 220 years old; these trees are
likely the same ones that appear
in late 1800s-era photos of the
cemetery site.
The Wheeler Ditch is a notable
historical resource on the Ute
Park parcel. This ditch was
built by the early City of Aspen
in 1882 to supply municipal
water to the community after
B. Clark Wheeler attempted to
monopolize the water of nearby
Ute Spring. The intake for the
ditch, built from river rocks,
and some of the landforms
immediately surrounding the
ditch are largely original. Certain
other infrastructure elements are
modern improvements, including
the grate and culvert pipe where
the ditch goes underground.
A metal fantasy art sculpture
created in 1968 by local artist Lou
Wille is a more recent historical
resource on the Ute Park parcel.
This sculpture exists in its original
location, surrounded by native
vegetation where it awaits
discovery by children exploring
this special property.
Cemetery
Highlights
Colonel Kirby of Texas is the
first known burial at the Ute
Cemetery in June of 1880
There are 185-200 graves
within the cemetery. 78 are
marked and 130 unmarked.
There are 29 marble Civil
War markers onsite.
The last burial in Ute
Cemetery was Tom
Simpson who was killed in
an avalanche on Richmond
Ridge in 1971.
In 2002 Ute Cemetery
was added to the National
Register of Historic Places
EXISTINGCONDITIONS|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 45CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS44
View towards the Ute Cemetery from the Aspen Grove Cemetery, 1900
Sidhu
Report
In 1996, Harvard University
student Vinita Sidhu wrote
a report documenting Ute
Cemetery. Sidhu estimated
that at least half of the
graves were unmarked at
that time.Courtesy of Aspen Historical Society 2.05
EXISTING PLANS,
POLICIES, AND
DOCUMENTATION
City of Aspen Municipal
Code and Plan Sections
City of Aspen’s Open Space
Zone district [26.701.260
Open Space (OS)] is defined
as:
A. Purpose. The purpose of the
Open Space (OS) Zone district is
to preserve, protect and enhance
lesser developed or undeveloped
areas within the City containing
unique naturally occurring or
man made landscape features
which provide visual relief and
enjoyment while reflecting or
presenting community artistic
or architectural statements.
Development in the Open
Space (OS) Zone District should
emphasize and be consistent with
the natural dynamic state of the
land and minimize disruption of
existing natural conditions.
The City of Aspen’s Land Use
Code Part 700, P zone Page 1
26.710.240 (P) is defined as:
A. Purpose. The purpose of
the Park (P) Zone District is to
ensure that land intended for
recreation use is developed
so as to serve its intended use
while not exerting a disruptive
influence on surrounding land
uses. 1. When a Park (P) Zone
District is designated with a
Transportation Overlay (T) Zone
District designation, its purpose
is to provide for the use of both
parks and public transportation
facilities in the most compatible
manner practicable, bit with
the park character remaining
dominant. 2. When a Park (P)
Zone District is designated with
a Drainage overlay (D) Zone
District designation, its purpose
is to provide for the use of
both park and drainage system
facilities in the most compatible
matter practicable, with the park
character remaining dominant.
3. When the Park (P) Zone
District is designated both with
the Transportation Overlay (T)
Zone District and the Drainage
Overlay (D) Zone District, its
purpose is to provide for the use
of parks, public transportation
facilities and drainage system
facilities in the most compatible
matter practicable, with the
park character remaining
dominant. 4. When the Park (P)
Zone District is designated Golf
Course Support (GCS) Overlay
Zone District, its purpose is to
provide for the use of public golf
courses and adjacent support
facilities in the most compatible
manner practicable, with the park
character remaining dominant.
City of Aspen Sec. 26.710.220.
– Conservation (C):
(A) Purpose. The purpose of
the Conservation (C) Zone
District is to provide areas of low
density development to enhance
public recreation, conserve
natural resources, encourage
the production of crops and
animals and to contain urban
development.
2012 Aspen Area Community
Plan
The Aspen Area Community Plan
is a guiding document written by
the City of Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission in conjunction
with Pitkin County Planning and
Zoning Commission and City and
County Community Development
staff. This document guides the
City and County on decisions
related to development, growth,
transportation, the environment,
health and welfare, historic
preservation, parks, recreation,
and other community aspects.
Reports and Other Docu-
mentation Related to the
Planning Area
1971 Colorado Genealogical
Etcetera Volume One:
Cemeteries of Pitkin County
This report was created by
Richard Cowling of Boulder,
Colorado, primarily to document
genealogical information
contained in Pitkin County’s
cemeteries1. The report
briefly noted the condition of
Ute Cemetery as being very
overgrown at the time of his
survey. Many stone markers had
been broken, including those of
Civil War veterans, and attempts
to repair some of them had been
made. Pages 31-32 list names,
dates, and other information
gathered by Cowling from
markers at Ute Cemetery.
1996 Report on the Conditions
of the Cemeteries of the City
of Aspen
In 1996, Harvard University
landscape architecture graduate
student Vinita Sidhu wrote a
report as part of her internship
with Aspen’s Department of
Community Development.
The report, titled “Report
on the Conditions of the
Cemeteries of the City of
Aspen with Recommendations
for Improvements,” provides
thorough information on the site
at that time2. The report noted
the deteriorated condition of the
perimeter fence which had may
gaps and was missing along the
entire northern boundary. No
sign existed to identify the site as
a cemetery; many markers were
covered with lichen and many
were broken. Existing pathways
were discernible, but no plot
map existed to compare these
with historical pathways. Cast
iron plot enclosures were in fair
shape, but wooden ones needed
stabilization. Woody vegetation
had grown over some markers and
many Civil War veteran’s markers
were broken and lying in pieces.
Sidhu estimated that at least half
of the graves were unmarked at
that time.
Sidhu compared her grave
inventory with that of Cowling’s
1971 report, showing that eight
markers had gone missing since
1971. Her report includes names
for which markers did not exist
from the Cemetery Record of
Deceased United States War
Veterans, Burial Records in
the Clerk & Recorder’s Office,
Death Certificates in the Clerk
& Recorder’s Office, Plaques in
the Aspen Historical Society files,
and Death Records at St. Mary’s
Church.
Recommendations made by Sidhu
included addressing goals for
the cemetery with preservation
indicated as the preferred
strategy. Two references were
noted: Graveyard Preservation
Primer by Lynette Strangstad
and an article by Cecelia Paine
on abandoned cemeteries.
The challenge of balancing
conservation of markers with the
charm of natural weathering was
mentioned. Recommendations
were based on not having a plot
map; no irreversible actions
were recommended be taken in
case a plot map would be found.
Recommendations included:
archaeological survey, property
boundary survey, repairs to fence,
establish entrance and sign,
establish paths, clear and maintain
vegetation, remove lichen from
stones, repair damaged stones,
stabilize plot enclosures, establish
a sign of remembrance. Roaring
Fork Volunteers was mentioned
as a source for carrying out
volunteer projects. An overall
priority list encompassing Aspen’s
three cemeteries identified fence
restoration at Ute Cemetery as
the top priority. Clearing paths
(3rd) and general vegetation
clearing (6th) at Ute Cemetery
were also identified. The report
provides resources and contacts
specific to Ute Cemetery, in
addition to an index of documents
and photographs, Works
Progress Administration survey
records, and Sidhu’s marker
survey. Additional sources of
1 Cowling, Richard. “Colorado Genealogical Etcetera Volume One: Cemeteries of Pitkin County.” 1971. Aspen Historical Society Archive
Record 1992.030.0005. URL
2 Sidhu, Vinita. “Report on the Conditions of the Cemeteries of the City of Aspen with Recommendations for Improvements.” November
1996. Archive Record 1966.044.0001, Aspen Historical Society. URL
EXISTINGCONDITIONS|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 47CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS46
records were noted, including an
inventory of Colorado cemeteries,
burial and death certificates, and
Colorado State Historical Society
inventory forms. Potential funding
sources for recommended actions
were listed.
Following the Sidhu report, a
site inventory and restoration
plan was developed by Tatanka
Historical Associates, Inc. in
2001, and management actions
recommended by Sidhu and
Tatanka were carried out (see
below).
2001 Historic Preservation
Plan: Ute Cemetery
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
of Fort Collins, CO conducted
site work and created a report in
2001 with the goals of providing
site survey documentation of
the cemetery’s historic and
non-historic features and a
preservation plan3. This report
also included interpretive
information about the cemetery’s
history and biographical
information for the people buried
there. BHA design, inc. of Fort
Collins, CO was a subcontractor
in this effort and provided a
2001 landscape improvements
report4 as part of Tatanka’s
overall report document for Ute
Cemetery. This comprehensive
report, whose scope included
field documentation, research,
and analysis completed between
April and October 2001, was
intended to serve as a guide for
the restoration, management, and
interpretation of Ute Cemetery.
Tatanka’s detailed analysis
and research built upon
information the City had
gained from the Sidhu report,
to address landscaping, site
access, perimeter fencing, site
security, interpretation, and
grave restoration, as well as
historic use, grave features,
restoration techniques, surface
and subsurface investigation, site
documentation, and restoration/
preservation conclusions. The
report provides detailed analysis
of marked and unmarked graves
and an analysis of the known
occupants of these graves for
cultural context and perspective.
Analysis of grave markers
and other materials was also
provided, giving insights into
burial traditions, economic and
familial status of grave occupants,
fraternal organizations, sourcing
of stone and metal elements, and
weathering and other impacts
to these elements. Conditional
analysis and recommended
remedies for restoration of each
grave site were included in data
files within the report, along with
priority recommendations related
to degree of deterioration and
risk of potential loss of historic
features. Potential risks to visitor
safety were also discussed,
primarily related to heavy stone
monuments that could topple.
Comments on the importance
of maintaining historic integrity
at this National Register site
and compliance with historic
preservation principles were
included. Based on the overgrown,
neglected state of Ute Cemetery
at the time, the report discussed
potential undocumented elements
and features and the skills
required to appropriately identify
them.
Tatanka discussed the value of
interpreting the site for visitors,
describing the trove of historic
cultural information contained
within the cemetery, including
Aspen’s demographics and
heritage, professions, causes of
death, and relationships between
individuals during the period of
use. The value and purpose of
the report was noted in relation
not only to proper restoration
and maintenance, but also to
family members, genealogists,
and other researchers, and it was
recommended that the report be
filed with permanent repositories
such as Pitkin County Public
Library, Denver Public Library’s
Western History Collection and
the Colorado Historical Society.
A bronze National Register
plaque was recommended to be
mounted to the entry gate or
primary interpretive sign as well
as development of an interpretive
brochure.
The landscape improvements
report suggested new features
to be added to Ute Cemetery to
enhance visitor experience while
preserving historic integrity and a
long-term maintenance plan. This
report covered site conditions;
overall concepts addressing
circulation, signage, fencing,
memorials, interpretation, security
and maintenance; interpretive
sign text; recommendations for
future use; cost information;
and drawings pertaining to the
conceptual site plan, entry,
signage, memorial, and suggested
fonts.
In an initial phase of work
following the 2001 Tatanka
report, gravesites were identified
and landmarked, overgrown
vegetation was selectively
cleared, soft-surface footpaths
were improved to provide visitor
access throughout the site,
and interpretive materials were
developed. The site was formally
designated to the Colorado State
Register of Historic Properties
and added to the National
Register of Historic Places in 2002
(see below). Courtesy of Aspen Historical Society : Hiser CollectionCourtesy of Aspen Historical Society : HS Whyte CollectionInterpretation
The value of interpreting the site for visitors, acknowledges
the trove of historic cultural information contained within
the cemetery, including Aspen’s demographics and heritage,
professions, causes of death, and relationships between
individuals during the period of use.
Analysis
Analysis of grave markers
and other materials
gave insights into burial
traditions, economic and
familial status of grave
occupants, fraternal
organization and sourcing of
stone and metal elements.
Inventory &
Restoration
Following the Sidhu
report, a site inventory
and restoration plan was
developed by Tatanka
Historical Associates, Inc. in
2001.
Ute Cemetery, 1955
Wooden Grave Enclosure, 1966
3 “Historic Preservation Plan: Ute Cemetery.” Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. November
1, 2001.
4 “Ute Cemetery Landscape Improvements Report.” BHA Design, Inc. September 2001.
EXISTINGCONDITIONS|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 49CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS48
G.F. Buzzard Headstone, 1966
Ute Cemetery Circa 1976
National
Register of
Historic
Places
Ute Cemetery was listed on
April 1, 2002 as an historic
site (cemetery) on the
National Register of Historic
Places in recognition of the
site’s historic significance
in the areas of exploration/
settlement and social
history.Courtesy of Aspen Historical Society : Hiser CollectionCourtesy of Aspen Historical Society These applications were
supported by a $3,400 grant from
the Colorado State Historical
Society. With another Colorado
State Historical Society grant
of $100,000 in 2002, extensive
stonework restoration was
conducted. Volunteer workdays
were held in 2002 and 2003,
and a re-dedication ceremony
was held on Memorial Day 2003.
Further work in 2003 included the
installation of an entry gateway,
stone monuments inscribed
with the names of all known
burials, installation of a natural
picket fence along the southern
boundary, and development of an
interpretive brochure. Following
this extensive work, remaining
opportunities to attend to Ute
Cemetery included ongoing
monitoring and maintenance
of historic elements, continued
vegetation management, and
further biographical research on
the people buried there.
United States Department
of the Interior, National
Park Service, National
Register of Historic Places
and State Office of Historic
Preservation
Ute Cemetery was listed on
April 1, 2002 as an historic site
(cemetery) on the National
Register of Historic Places in
recognition of the site’s historic
significance in the areas of
exploration/settlement and
social history. A National Historic
Register District is a defined
geographical area consisting of
contributing and noncontributing
properties. The listing number
is 02000291 and the site is
described as 4.67 acres where
at least 125 burials are known to
exist; its period of significance
is 1880-1930. Historic function is
described as funerary/cemetery
and current function is funerary/
cemetery. The National Historic
Register’s purpose is to identify,
evaluate, and protect historic and
archaeological resources in the
United States.
Such listing is defined on the
National Historic Register’s
webpage
(https://www.nps.gov/subjects/
nationalregister/faqs.htm):
“Under Federal Law, the listing
of a property in the National
Register places no restrictions
on what a non-federal owner
may do with their property up
to and including destruction,
unless the property is involved
in a project that receives Federal
assistance, usually funding or
licensing/permitting.” As a
National Historic Register listing
the site is automatically on the
State Register of Historic Places,
Colorado State Office of Historic
Preservation: Ute Cemetery, site
number 5PT.122. Although there
are no restrictions conferred by
these listings, in the event that
any federal or state monies would
be involved with development that
would impact the site, a process
would be initiated per Section
106 of the National Preservation
Act. A Section 106 process would
involve any pertinent agencies
including local preservation
entities and local ordinances in
order to address potential impacts
and alternatives. Although a
Section 106 process does not
mandate a preservation outcome,
this consultation process
would require consideration of
alternatives and/or mitigation
of any impacts to listed historic
resources.
2024 Historic Preservation
Plan: Ute Cemetery, As-
pen, Colorado
This report completed by
Tatanka Historical Associates,
Inc. in February 20245 updates
and expands the preservation
report prepared by the same
organization for Ute Cemetery
in 2001. The work for this
report, which involved field
reconnaissance, archival research,
and documentation, provided
an opportunity to evaluate
restoration and interpretive work
conducted in the early 2000s and
to expand upon prior biographical
and cultural research related
to the individuals buried in Ute
Cemetery. The report provides
comprehensive considerations
for the future related to
materials restoration, overall site
functionality, maintenance, access
and visitor experience, and future
use. The report is a resource for
any City staff and contractors for
work protocols specific to this
historic and sacred property.
Analysis of site features,
condition, and treatment provides
guidance for current and future
maintenance. The brick and
sandstone entrance gateway,
which is in good condition,
needs light cleaning to remove
efflorescence and tuckpointing is
recommended in the next decade.
Inscribed monuments inside the
cemetery’s main entrance are in
good condition and need light
cleaning, especially the Civil
War veterans monument where
tree sap has soiled the inscribed
surface. Regarding the regulations
5 “Historic Preservation Plan Ute Cemetery, Aspen, Colorado,” Tatanka Historical Associates, February 16, 2024.
EXISTINGCONDITIONS|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 51CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS50 Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff A wooden grave enclosure 2024
Natural
Factors
Natural environmental
factors that weather historic
elements at this site include
exposure to sunlight,
precipitation and humidity,
and freeze-thaw cycles.
Unmarked
Graves
Many unmarked grave
depressions documented in
2001 are no longer apparent
due to natural erosion and
growth of vegetation.
sign, it is recommended to
encourage photographs instead of
taking gravestone rubbings. The
brochure box does not appear
to be stocked with interpretive
brochures.
The picket fencing along the Ute
Avenue boundary of the cemetery
is in good condition, but it should
receive attention each spring
to replace broken or missing
pickets and posts. Encroachment
by adjacent residences along
the west and north boundaries,
which are not clearly marked,
should be watched. The grounds
are noted to be dominated by
aspen trees and serviceberry
shrubs which obscure visibility
of certain cultural features; trees
or branches have periodically
fallen and caused damage to
grave markers and fencing.
Pathways are in good condition.
A thorough description and
conditional and cultural analysis
of grave markers and enclosures
are provided, noting previous
restoration work in good condition
overall. Many unmarked grave
depressions documented in
2001 are no longer apparent due
to natural erosion and growth
of vegetation. No evidence of
recent vandalism was noted.
Natural environmental factors
that weather historic elements
at this site include exposure
to sunlight, precipitation and
humidity, freeze-thaw cycles, and
activities of insects and animals.
Many coping stones are obscured
by vegetation; periodic clearing
is recommended to maintain
visibility. Remaining wooden
features are in severe states of
natural decay. Surviving woodwork
in relatively good condition
could be painted or treated to be
preserved; all wooden elements
could be mapped, measured, and
photographed for documentation.
Moss, lichen, and other natural
environmental factors are part of
the ungroomed, historic character
and should not be altered.
The report noted that repairs and
grounds work done in the early
2000s has kept the cemetery
in good overall condition today.
Repairs to marble gravestones
should be inspected yearly for
any additional needed repair
work. Environmental factors that
deteriorate marble are described,
as well as an appropriate cleaning
method for this soft stone. Marble
stones, which are particularly
vulnerable to deterioration from
sugaring, road salts, tree sap,
and insect droppings should
be carefully cleaned using the
described method. Investigation
by an archaeologist of the shed
ruins in the northwest corner of
the cemetery is recommended.
Considerations for the future
of Ute Cemetery center
around carefully addressing
the cemetery’s needs while
enhancing opportunities for
public access, interpretation,
education, and appreciation. Only
appropriate maintenance and no
improvements are recommended
within the burial area. Sources for
official guidelines for any future
work at the site are provided in
the report along with a list of
standards from the secretary
of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation that apply to the
cemetery (pages 28-29). The site
is experiencing typical organic
change, with aspen forest
gradually taking over the formerly
open site, and surrounding
forests blocking the once open
view between the cemetery and
Aspen’s core. Ute Cemetery still
retains an excellent degree of
integrity and significance, and
supporting its designation to
the National Register of Historic
Places should remain a primary
goal of any future preservation
work on site.
Regarding site approach and
entry, a wayfinding sign indicating
the direction to the cemetery is
recommended at the intersection
of Cooper Avenue and Original
Street. Parking and pathways
within the site are adequate.
Fencing, due to the designation
and sense of protection it imparts,
should be checked and maintained
annually. Regarding Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA)
access, the plan recommends
observing the exception to ADA
guidelines as stated in section
16.1.1, referencing compliance that
would cause substantial harm
to cultural, historic, religious, or
significant natural features or
characteristics. Therefore, no
improvements or widening of the
paths is advised.
Security and oversight may
continue to be addressed by
maintaining the site which
gives the impression that the
community values the cemetery
and that it is watched over. This
atmosphere discourages ill-
intended activity and is all that
can reasonably be done to secure
the site. Regular visits by City of
Aspen staff are recommended.
Additional recommendations
include letting adjacent residents
know of the role they can play
in watching over the cemetery,
education of the local community,
and communication with the press
and local law enforcement. Photo courtesy of the Aspen Historical Society 3’x1 1/4’ wooden grave marker from Ute Cemetery. The marker was for Clara C. Eldredge,
wife of J.R. Eldredge, who died Nov. 18, 1891. She was born June 9, 1847. Her age was 44
years, five months and nine days when she died
EXISTINGCONDITIONS|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 53CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS52
Civil War Headstone Photo Credit: Peak Ecological Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff Pale Yellow Iris, a plant of historical significance
Best
Practices
Best practices in cemetery
restoration continue to
evolve, and seeking out
current, state-of-the art
information is important
for avoiding outdated
techniques that could result
in damage to artifacts.
Restoration
Markers that sit low to the
ground are recommended to
be raised and leveled by an
experienced conservator.
Current regulations signage
conveys the appropriate
expectations for visitor conduct,
however the phrase “Cemetery
Etiquette” is recommended to add
as a heading to impart a positive
impression of expected behavior
and foster respect for the site.
A list of suggested visitation
standards is provided on pages
32-33.
The native vegetation and natural,
unmanicured character of the
cemetery is part of its historic
value, and as such, the site has
become a nature preserve.
Any vegetation management
must be conducted with care;
no new plantings or irrigation
are recommended. Historic
intentional plantings by family
members include the pale yellow
iris that persist on site and serve
to identify unmarked graves.
Careful vegetation management is
recommended, including removal
of trees and shrubs growing
within two feet of markers
and enclosures or otherwise
endangering historic features,
selective pruning of branches that
scrape or could fall on historic
features, and maintaining thick
vegetation as a buffer around the
perimeter of the cemetery.
Maintenance recommendations
for the burial area includes
taking steps to preserve marble
gravestones impacted by
sugaring, specifically the marker
for Freddie Ovren and certain
Civil War veterans’ markers,
following treatments specified in
Preservation Brief 48: Preserving
Grave Markers in Historic
Cemeteries. Markers that sit low
to the ground are recommended
to be raised and leveled by an
experienced conservator. Any
operators of trimming equipment
and any volunteers or contractors
should be instructed on avoiding
inadvertently causing impacts to
stonework and woodwork. Any
work that breaks ground in the
burial area calls for archaeological
oversight. Additional maintenance
guidelines pertaining to herbicide
use, moving of or repairs to any
markers or other historic items,
and City approval for these
activities are provided on page
35. Specific notes on materials
restoration methods pertaining
to environmental conditions at
high altitude in the arid West,
as opposed to the majority of
such guidelines that have been
developed for Eastern U.S.
cemeteries, are provided on
pages 35 and 36. Best practices in
cemetery restoration continue to
evolve, and seeking out current,
state-of-the art information is
important for avoiding outdated
techniques that could result in
damage to artifacts. Precautionary
information about thorough
planning, professional oversight,
and the risks of well-intended
volunteer efforts are provided
on page 36. Due to the severe
state of woodwork deterioration,
a “return to nature” approach is
the practical recommendation
for wooden elements at Ute
Cemetery. Because the site is
being managed as a historic
landmark, it is recommended
that the City should not allow
any future burials and to state
this in appropriate public site
information sources.
Regarding records and
documentation for Ute Cemetery,
the plan recommends that the
City of Aspen should keep
documentation together and
organized so that these resources
continue to guide the future
of the cemetery and remain
accessible to researchers. These
documents include this report,
all past reports and plans, maps,
newspaper articles, historic
and current photographs,
and biographical reports
constituting the recorded life
of Ute Cemetery. Interpretation
of the site is recommended
via the brochure developed
in 2001 by Tatanka Historical
Associates and/or a QR code
sign for access to interpretive
information. If creating signage
to convey interpretive content
is preferred, such signs should
be minimal and placed carefully
to avoid detracting from
the cemetery’s appearance.
Suggested improvements to the
brochure are described on page
41. Tatanka Historical Associates is
researching a future supplement
to this preservation report to
provide additional biographical
information on those buried at Ute
Cemetery.
Natural Resource Baseline
Report: 2024 Growing Season.
Ute Cemetery Open Space,
City of Aspen, Pitkin County,
March 2024
This comprehensive report6
was prepared in March 2024 by
Colorado Wildlife Sciences, LLC
and Peak Ecological Services,
LLC. to provide documentation
of ecological context, existing
conditions, and management
recommendations related to soils
and geology, plant communities,
noxious weeds, pollinator habitat,
and wildlife. Complete lists
of vascular plants and wildlife
species known or suspected to
occur were included, as well as
lists of non-native and noxious
weeds. No species of conservation
concern were documented on the
planning area, and notes about
species of conservation concern
that have the potential to exist
on the property or have been
associated with other sites in
the general area were included.
Based on these conditions and
assessment of overall ecological
functionality of the planning area,
management recommendations
were developed to help guide
future management of the site in
support of its natural resources.
6 “Natural Resources Baseline Report, 2024 Growing Season,” Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC and Peak Ecological Services, LLC. March
2024, revised March 28, 2025.
EXISTINGCONDITIONS|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 55CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS54
Streamflow
The City of Aspen and
the Colorado Water Trust
developed an agreement in
2016 to restore streamflow
to the Roaring Fork River
during dry years while
maintaining the City’s water
rights
Ute Park
Ute Park was dedicated to the Ute People in 1993 in celebration
of the first Ute Summit and as a part of the United Nations of
Indigenous Peoples. Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff Ute Park Dedication
A plaque installed at Ute Park
acknowledges the dedication
of the site to the Ute People in
1993 in celebration of the first
Ute Summit held in April 1993
in Glenwood Springs, Colorado
as part of the United Nations
Year of Indigenous Peoples. The
summit event marked the first
time in 114 years that the Uintah-
Ouray Nation, Southern Ute
Nation and, Ute Mountain Ute
Nation gathered to discuss shared
concerns and celebrate their
reunion.
Easements and Other
Agreements
Wheeler Ditch Non-Diversion
Agreement
The City of Aspen has entered
into several non-diversion
agreements with the Colorado
Water Conservation Board7.
Single-year pilot agreements
were made in 20138 and 20149, to
be enacted when streamflow in
the Roaring Fork River was less
than 32 cfs at the Wheeler Ditch
headgate. A longer-term, 5-in-10-
year agreement made in 201610
has boosted streamflows during
five of ten years. This streamflow
restoration project in which
the City reduces water volume
diverted into the Wheeler Ditch
while protecting and maintaining
its water rights, was developed
by the City of Aspen and the
Colorado Water Trust to restore
streamflow to the Roaring Fork
River in the reach that flows
through the city during dry years.
Funding for this project comes
from Pitkin County Healthy
Rivers and Streams Board, ESPN,
Inc, Aspen Skiing Company’s
Environment Foundation, and
Bonneville Environmental
Foundation.
Public Fishing Easements
Public fishing easements exist on
private property upstream and
downstream from the riverfront
area of the Ute Park property.
The Gordon/Callahan Sub Lot 9
Fisherman’s Easement, established
in 1991, is described as lying
between the center of the Roaring
Fork River and five feet above the
highwater mark on the northeast
bank. The description of this
easement mentions the owner’s
right to enjoy the easement area
for all purposes which do not
interfere with the public fishing
rights and releases the owner
from responsibility or liability
related to use of the public fishing
easement. The Lot 10 Calderwood
Subdivision fishing easement is
described as allowing the right
and privilege of wading in the
Roaring Fork River as it passes
through this property, although
there is no right to cross the land
on this property for access to and
from the river.
Wheeler Ditch Trail Easement
An easement for the Wheeler
Ditch Trail was established in
1987 and is described on the plat
for the Ten-Ten Ute Subdivision,
signed in June of that year. The
agreement granted a public trail
easement conditioned upon the
construction of the necessary
trail link between the eastern end
of the Wheeler Ditch Trail and
the Aspen Club Trail. The City
currently maintains the Wheeler
Ditch Trail.
Aspen Club Trail Easement
A trail easement for the Aspen
Club Trail was established on
September 23, 1975 between Fritz
and Fabi Benedict’s company
known as Benedict Land &
Cattle Company and the Board
of County Commissioners of
Pitkin County. In the agreement,
an easement for recreational
public access was granted by the
Benedicts across their property
along an alignment determined
by the Benedicts. The agreement
stipulated a 14-foot trail easement,
and a maximum pavement width
of eight feet. Pitkin County was
responsible for construction of
the trail and a split rail fence
along each side of the easement,
as well as ongoing maintenance.
The easement document
describes allowed public use as
limited to pedestrian, equestrian,
bicycling, and cross-country
skiing; motor vehicles are
prohibited except for maintenance
of the trail. This easement was
conditioned upon approval of the
Benedict’s Callahan Subdivision
and tennis club plans, and various
contingencies were described.
The City currently maintains the
Aspen Club Trail. Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff The Roaring Fork River approaching the Ute properties
The Aspen Club Trail
7 “Roaring Fork River - Wheeler Ditch.” Colorado Water Trust, Projects. Accessed April 14, 2025. URL
8 City of Aspen, LF Records, City Clerk, City Council. Resolution No. 63 Series of 2013. “agreement with Colorado Water Trust for 2013
pilot program to improve streamflow conditions in the Roaring Fork River.” Accessed April 14, 2025. URL
9 City of Aspen, LF Records, City Clerk, City Council. Resolution No. 55 Series of 2014. “program to improve Roaring Fork River’s stream-
flow by approving Wheeler Ditch Water Right Forebearance Agreement.” URL
10 City of Aspen, LF Records, City Clerk, City Council. Resolution No. 60 Series of 2016. “Colorado Water Trust to improve streamflow
conditions in the Roaring Fork River.” URL
EXISTINGCONDITIONS|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 57CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS56
Undeveloped Easements
There are existing undeveloped trail easements adjacent to the riverfront portion of the Ute Park
property that could create public trail connections in the future.
0 ft.100 ft. NRecreation Easements
Other Trail Easements
There are existing undeveloped
trail easements adjacent to the
riverfront portion of the Ute Park
property that could create public
trail connections in the future.
These include the Lot 9 Gordon/
Callahan twelve-foot-wide bicycle
and trail easement which runs
along the northeast bank of the
Roaring Fork River and the Lot 1
Gordon Subdivision twelve-foot-
wide public trail easement, also
along the northeast bank of the
Roaring Fork River.
Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District Access
Easement
An Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District sewer line runs beneath
Ute Avenue Trail. The access
easement for this line is described
as a 10-foot utility easement on
the plat for the adjacent Callahan
Subdivision.
City of Aspen Utilities
Department Access
The City of Aspen Utilities
Department operates and
maintains the Wheeler Ditch. The
Utilities Department accesses the
Wheeler Ditch area via a vehicular
access corridor across Ute Park
from the Ute Avenue Trail to the
edge of the bluff above the river.
No documentation is known to
exist related to the underground
portion of the Wheeler Ditch as it
continues to the west out of the
planning area.EasementFi
sh
ing
Easemen
tUndeveloped
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
Ditch Trail
Tra
i
l
Ut
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Aj
a
x
T
r
a
i
l
Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff Walking path Ute Properties
EXISTINGCONDITIONS|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 59CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS58 Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff 2.06
CURRENT USES
UTE CEMETERY
Ute Cemetery is currently
maintained as an historic
cemetery site, where the public
may visit and explore along
the soft-surface footpaths that
meander throughout the site.
The cemetery is largely a passive
site where preservation of the
graves, markers, and other
historic elements and associated
interpretive opportunities
represent the primary functions
of this property as part of Aspen’s
cultural heritage.
Aspen Historical Society conducts
occasional historical interpretive
walks at Ute Cemetery, and Aspen
Center for Environmental Studies
conducts occasional birding and
geology outings at the site in
coordination with the City of
Aspen Parks and Open Space
Department.
Other uses of this parcel
include nature observation and
preservation of wildlife habitat
and native ecosystems. Soft-
surface footpaths that connect
with other surrounding trails
are used by trail runners, dog
walkers, birdwatchers, and other
recreational trail users. There
is parking at Ute Cemetery for
approximately six vehicles in a
small gravel parking area off Ute
Avenue.
UTE PARK
Current uses of the Ute Park
parcel relate to its various
features: a small playground area,
trails, river access, native habitat,
and the Wheeler Ditch.
Originally developed as a
children’s park with several play
elements installed in 1968, this
property now serves as a natural
park space with a small play area.
Two small playground elements
designed for ages 5-12 and a
picnic table were installed in 2022
to replace older play elements.
The natural surroundings around
this small play/picnic area
provide opportunities for nature
observation and exploration.
A fantasy metal art sculpture,
created in the 1970s by local
sculptor Lou Wille as one of
the park’s original children’s
play elements, is situated in the
southwest portion of the park.
Its setting on a slope away from
the play area allows children to
discover the sculpture among the
overgrown vegetation that now
surrounds it.
The paved, multi-use Ute Avenue
Trail and East of Aspen Trail run
along the southern and eastern
boundaries of Ute Park; these
trails are popular recreational
and commuter trails. Soft-surface
footpaths throughout the park
connect with these paved trails as
well as paths in Ute Cemetery and
the Wheeler Ditch Trail, providing
access for hikers, dog walkers,
trail runners, and families using
the play and picnic area. The park
also provides fishing access to the
Roaring Fork River.
The largely undeveloped nature
of Ute Park parcel makes it a
key part of the wildlife corridor
between Richmond Ridge and the
Roaring Fork River mentioned
in the 2024 Natural Resource
Baseline Report. The native aspen
woodlands, shrublands, and
riparian ecosystem hold value to
wildlife that use Ute Park based
on its proximity to surrounding
larger habitat areas and its
usefulness to small animals and
pollinators whose home ranges
are within or partly within the
parcel. The riverfront segment
of Ute Park also serves as a
natural buffer between residential
properties and the river, as it
preserves the riparian ecosystem
along the shore of the Roaring
Fork River.
The Ute Park property also
serves as the site of the Wheeler
Ditch which pulls raw water from
the Roaring Fork River for use
in the City stormwater system,
Pedestrian Mall ditches, and
limited irrigation. Recently, the
City of Aspen entered into several
non-diversion agreements with
the Colorado Water Conservation
Board: singular agreements in
2013 and 2014 (enacted when
streamflow in the Roaring Fork
River is less than 32 cfs at the
Wheeler Ditch headgate) and a
5-in-10-year agreement in 2016 (a
longer-term solution that boosts
streamflow during five of ten
years). This streamflow restoration
project in which the City reduces
water volume diverted into the
Wheeler Ditch while protecting
and maintaining its water rights,
was developed by the City of
Aspen and the Colorado Water
Trust to restore streamflow to the
Roaring Fork River in the reach
that flows through the City of
Aspen during dry years. Funding
for this project comes from
Pitkin County Healthy Rivers and
Streams Board, ESPN, Inc, Aspen
Skiing Company’s Environment
Foundation, and Bonneville
Environmental Foundation. A
corridor across the parcel is used
for vehicular access to the river
bluff above the Wheeler Ditch, as
required by City of Aspen Utilities
which operates and maintains this
raw water ditch.
Parking for approximately ten
vehicles exists off Ute Avenue
at Ute Park, and also serves the
trailhead for the Ute Trail.
BENEDICT PARCEL
This small, undeveloped parcel
(0.317 acres) is vegetated with
a native mountain shrubland
plant community, which connects
with similar habitat areas in the
adjacent Ute Cemetery and Ute
Park properties. Current uses
on this parcel are ecological in
nature, supporting the continuous
wildlife habitat in the general
planning area which connects the
extensive habitats of Richmond
Ridge with the Roaring Fork River.
Ute Park Playground
Ute Avenue Parking
EXISTINGCONDITIONS|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 61CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS60
Western Property Boundary Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff Benedict Trail Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff 2.07 ADJACENT
LAND USES
This section describes land
uses adjacent to the 7.571-acre
planning area comprised of the
three parcels included in this
management plan: Ute Cemetery,
Ute Park, and the Triangle Parcel.
The west and northwest sides
of planning area border private
residential properties of the Ten-
Ten Ute Subdivision or Ute Place
neighborhood. The lots within this
subdivision that directly adjoin
the planning area are developed
with private residences. To the
northeast, the planning area is
bounded by the Roaring Fork
River, and land on the opposite
shore is also residential. The
Benedict Building (Powderhouse
Condominium Association,
professional building) of the
Callahan Subdivision is situated
along the southeast edge of the
planning area. The planning area
is bounded to the south by Ute
Avenue; land on the opposite side
of this street is private residential
and White River National Forest.
Other uses in the general area
but not directly adjacent to the
planning area include a small
park and several area trails: Ajax
Park, Ute Trail, Ajax Trail, and the
continuations of the Wheeler
Ditch Trail, Ute Avenue Trail, and
Aspen Club Trail. Winter public
Nordic trail access exists across
Ute Avenue and intersects with
the Ute Trail. Ute Place HOA is
located on Ute Avenue nearby.
Ute Mesa Open Space, through
which the Ajax Trail passes, is
located on the lower slope of
Aspen Mountain above Ajax Park.
Glory Hole Park is located at the
west end of Ute Avenue.
A small gravel parking area off
Ute Avenue at Ute Cemetery
has space for about six vehicles,
and a small gravel parking area
off Ute Avenue at Ute Park has
space for about ten vehicles. On-
street parking is available along
segments of Ute Avenue. Ajax
Park features picnic tables and
parking for approximately eight
vehicles.
2.08 ACCESS,
TRAILS, AND
PARKING
UTE CEMETERY
Access to Ute Cemetery is
provided at its main entrance
off Ute Avenue and Ute Avenue
Trail, and from Ute Park on
a soft-surface footpath that
connects these parcels at the
eastern boundary of the cemetery
parcel. Access to Ute Cemetery
is limited to visitors on foot and
ADA visitors; bikes and motorized
vehicles are prohibited.
The Ute Avenue Trail which
parallels the southern boundary
of the cemetery is a paved,
multi-use trail. Narrow soft-
surface footpaths provide access
throughout the interior of the
cemetery and connect with Ute
Park at the eastern boundary of
the cemetery.
Due to the natural, rugged
nature of Ute Cemetery and its
historic footpaths, ADA access is
limited to the main entrance and
the extent of the footpaths that
can accommodate ADA mobility
devices.
Parking exists off Ute Avenue at
Ute Cemetery, where about six
vehicles can be accommodated for
head-in parking in a gravel lot.
UTE PARK
Access to Ute Park exists at its
main entrance off Ute Avenue
and Ute Avenue Trail. There is
additional trail access via the
Wheeler Ditch Trail that passes
through the northeastern portion
of the park and via interior soft-
surface footpaths that connect
from the Aspen Club Trail and the
footpaths in Ute Cemetery.
A vehicular access corridor exists
from Ute Avenue Trail across the
park to the bluff above the river;
this corridor provides access
to the City of Aspen Utilities
Department which operates and
maintains the Wheeler Ditch.
Ute Avenue Trail and the Aspen
Club Trail are paved, multi-use
trails that run along the southern
and eastern boundaries of the
park. Soft-surface footpaths
provide access into the park
to the playground and picnic
table space and connect to
Ute Cemetery on the western
boundary of the park. The
Wheeler Ditch Trail, a soft-
surface trail, enters the park
from the Aspen Club Trail at the
northeastern corner of the park
and runs along the riverfront
portion of Ute Park to a point
at the parcel’s northwestern
boundary where this trail
continues through residential
areas to its western terminus at
the Ute Avenue Trail.
No specific ADA access is
provided at Ute Park; however,
most of the trail described above
accommodate most ADA mobility
devices.
A gravel parking area off Ute
Avenue at Ute Park accommodates
about ten vehicles. This parking
area also serves the popular Ute
Trail whose trailhead is directly
across Ute Avenue.
BENEDICT PARCEL
There are no formal trails
accessing this open space parcel.
There is no ADA access to this
parcel due to the lack of trails
and the nature of the rugged
landscape. There is no parking
specific to this parcel; the nearest
public parking is available along
Ute Avenue at Ute Cemetery, as
described above.
EXISTINGCONDITIONS|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 63CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS62
Ute Avenue Trail
Ute Cemetery Guidlines
Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff Wheeler Diversion Ute Park Plaque Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff 2.09
RECREATION
Recreational opportunities for
visitors to Ute Cemetery and
Ute Park are primarily passive
activities such as walking or
running on the trails, walking
dogs, accessing the river for
fishing, exploring the historic
cemetery and learning local
history, nature observation,
picnicking, or playing at the small
playground. Local residents use
the trails in the planning area
regularly as part of their walks,
trail runs, or dog walking outings.
Families conducting business at
the Benedict Building may visit
the playground. A few guided
outings provided by Aspen
Historical Society and Aspen
Center for Environmental Studies
take place in Ute Cemetery and
Ute Park regularly every year
in coordination with the Parks
and Open Space Department to
focus on local history and natural
history.
2.10
WATER RIGHTS
The City of Aspen owns water
rights associated with the
Wheeler Ditch. This water right,
Priority No. 44 for 10.0 cubic feet
per second (cfs), was adjudicated
(formally confirmed by the water
court) on May 11, 1889, as decreed
in Case No. CA0132 for irrigation,
stock, street, and domestic
purposes. The appropriation date
is August 1, 1882, with respect to
seniority based on the Colorado
water rights system’s “first in
time, first in right” principle. The
Wheeler Ditch water right has an
“absolute” decree status, meaning
it is permanent. The maximum
decreed rate is 10.0 cfs, as noted
above.
The point of diversion was
decreed as being located on the
south or west bank of the Roaring
Fork River, about three-fourths of
a mile above Ute Spring, near the
east line of the town site of Aspen.
The statement of claim alleges
that there was 550 acres irrigated
or proposed to be irrigated
under the ditch. Infrastructure at
the Wheeler Ditch is comprised
of river rock diversion walls,
the ditch structure, headgate
structures, bypass structures, and
an underground culvert covered
with a debris grate. Presently, the
Wheeler Ditch supplies raw water
to the City’s stormwater system,
Pedestrian Mall ditches, and
limited irrigation uses.
The City of Aspen’s records
regarding the Wheeler Ditch
include Diversion Records which
detail volume diverted for the
years 1930-1980 and notes of uses,
as well as certain years during
which the ditch was not in use or
received repairs. These records
also note several legal opinions
2.11 SIGNAGE
UTE CEMETERY
A brick entry monument with
an inscribed sandstone block
that reads “Ute Cemetery 1880”
identifies Ute Cemetery at its
main entrance. Just inside the
entry area, two large sandstone
monuments list names of the
people buried in the cemetery. A
few steps further in, a park sign
provides site regulations and
conduct guidelines and identifies
the cemetery as a City of Aspen
Parks & Open Space property.
A holder for providing the site’s
printed interpretive brochure is
attached to the rules sign post.
The brochure provides history
of the cemetery including its
designation as a National Historic
Register site, the cemetery’s
context and cultural significance
to the Aspen community, recent
restoration efforts, exploration
and reflective thinking prompts,
and natural history highlights.
Site rules pertain to park hours;
leashing dogs; prohibited bikes
and motor vehicles; minimizing
noise and activity; staying on
designated paths; prohibited
hunting, camping, and equestrian
use; not leaning or pushing on
gravestones for both respect and
safety; prohibited use of alcohol;
and a reference to the brochure
for guidelines on permitted
gravestone rubbing.
UTE PARK
Ute Park is identified by a stone
monument bearing a plaque at
the primary entrance to the park
space off Ute Avenue Trail and
Ute Avenue. The plaque describes
the site’s dedication to the Ute
People in recognition of the 1993
Ute Summit and United Nations
Year of Indigenous Peoples. Near
this location, there is a small,
yellow National Forest property
boundary sign next to a Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) U.S.
Cadastral Survey marker.
At the parking spaces off Ute
Avenue (serving Ute Park as well
as Ute and Ajax Trails across
Ute Avenue), there is a dog bag
dispenser and accompanying Dog
Waste sign posted on a signpost
displaying a 2-hour Parking/For
Park Use Only sign. A bear-proof
trash can is next to this signpost.
At the base of wooden stairs
between the parking area and Ute
Avenue Trail, a small sign states
“to Ute Trail.”
Along Ute Avenue Trail adjacent
to Ute Park, there is a sign
indicating a 15 miles per hour
speed limit on the trail. A Wheeler
Ditch Trail sign is posted at the
eastern terminus of this trail
within Ute Park. This signpost
also displays a small “no biking”
sign. There is a second Dog Waste
sign and bag dispenser in the
eastern portion of Ute Park at the
eastern terminus of a soft-surface
footpath that diagonals through
the park space to the main
entrance.
At the western end of the Ute
Park parcel, where the Wheeler
Ditch Trail continues beyond the
parcel’s western boundary and
onward through trail easements
that cross private residential
properties, there is a sign that
reads “Respect Private Property,
Please Stay on Trail,” along with a
small “No Biking” sign.
and reports which apparently
confuse the Wheeler Ditch with
other ditches in the general
vicinity.
As described in section 2.05,
the City of Aspen has entered
into several non-diversion
agreements with the Colorado
Water Conservation Board.
Single-year pilot agreements
were made in 2013 and 2014, to
be enacted when streamflow in
the Roaring Fork River was less
than 32 cfs at the Wheeler Ditch
headgate. A longer-term, 5-in-
10-year agreement made in 2016
has boosted streamflows during
five of ten years. This streamflow
restoration project in which
the City reduces water volume
diverted into the Wheeler Ditch
while protecting and maintaining
its water rights, was developed
by the City of Aspen and the
Colorado Water Trust to restore
streamflow to the Roaring Fork
River in the reach that flows
through the city during dry years.
Funding for this project comes
from Pitkin County Healthy
Rivers and Streams Board, ESPN,
Inc, Aspen Skiing Company’s
Environment Foundation, and
Bonneville Environmental
Foundation.
The Wheeler Ditch was built in
1882 to supply municipal water to
the early City of Aspen. Please
refer to 1.02 History for further
historical information on the
Wheeler Ditch.
PUBLICCOMMENTS|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 65CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS64Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff Birding Outing - ACES Stakeholders
PUBLICANDSTAKEHOLDER
COMMENTS Photo Credit: City of Aspen Staff Ute Trail
3.1 Public Comments
Public comment was gathered on the Ute properites through the Aspen Community Voice website. The survey
and comment period was open to the public from September 8th through October 7th of 2025.
Participation in the survey was limited to 2 City of Aspen residents. Of those repsonses participants only
chose to answer the multiple choice questions. The responses received from the public indicated that the both
cultural and natural resources are valuable in the open space.
3.02
Stakeholder Comments:
Aspen Center for Environmental Studies: “ACES is
supportive of the Ute Properties management plan
as proposed by the City of Aspen. We appreciate
that the City has put significant effort and resources
into managing for native vegetation and wildlife on
a relatively small property. We agree that riparian
properties, even small ones, provide an important link
between waterways and higher elevation forested
ecosystems. This management plan successfully
balances the ecological role of this property with its
unique cultural resources.”
The United States Forest Service welcomed the
management plan for the Ute properties and
described them as, ‘a complement to the Forest
Service lands next door.”
The Historic Preservation Commission reminded the
Parks Department that the property is designated as
a historic site and will require HPC approval for any
work beyond routine maintenance.
The 10th Mountain Hut Division Association offered
three suggestions:
1. Natural Resource Management Actions NR3.
Managing vegetation to reduce fuel loads and risk
of wildland fire to the Properties and adjoining
The Ute Properties Management Plan has been developed in coordination with input from the public and stakeholders.
A process timeline is provided in the Planning Process and Public Input section. Appendix W contains public comments
received. Comments were gathered from the following groups and entities: Aspen Historical Society, United States For-
est Service, Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, the Benedict Building, Ute Place HOA.
properties should only be done by approved
workers adhering to very specific prescriptions and
markings in accordance with a Wildfire Mitigation
Plan adopted by the City.
2. Historic Resources Management Actions. Utilize
volunteers only when they are fully trained and
aware of the value of the Properties and only for
specific scopes of work with close supervision.
3. Recreation and Trails Management Actions.
RT3. We support improvements to parking areas
to enhance safety and function but oppose any
increase in vehicle capacity.
Ute Place HOA had two concerned property
owners about plans to complete the fence around
the entirety of the property. The owners suggested
that the city pursue other less intrusive ways to
mark the boundary.
No comments were received from the Powder
House Condo association or the City of Aspen
Utilities Department.
67CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS66OPPORTUNITIES&PLANNINGISSUES|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN
OPPORTUNITIES &
PLANNINGISSUES Photo credit: City of Aspen Staff Photo credit: City of Aspen Staff Fall Sunset Ute Avenue Trail
Ute Cemetery and Ute Park are
the primary parcels within the
planning area, each containing
significant natural, built, and
historical features. The Triangle
Parcel is a very small piece of
land between Ute Cemetery and
Ute Park. Covered with similar
native vegetation and having no
facilities, improvements, or other
built features, it is addressed only
where pertinent within Chapter
4 and is otherwise considered an
extension of the primary parcels’
native, upland ecosystem.
Ute Cemetery, a National Historic
Register site, is a singular open
space property of great historical
and cultural importance to the
community of Aspen. Management
of the cemetery property carries
a certain set of considerations
and responsibilities with regard
to the sacred ground and the
care of gravestones and other
historic elements. Ute Park is
one of Aspen’s few unmanicured,
natural park spaces, having a
small playground and picnic area
amid its wildflower-studded,
aspen woodland environment. Ute
Park extends downslope to the
Roaring Fork River to include a
strip of river riparian habitat and
the Wheeler Ditch, a historical
diversion structure that still
operates to deliver raw water for
specific irrigation and stormwater
base flow purposes, utilizing
associated City-owned water
rights.
Together, these parcels are a
beloved natural area used and
appreciated by residents of
adjacent neighborhoods, a small
volume of general visitors, and
several guided nature or history
outings annually. While relatively
small, the planning area contains
the home or breeding territories
of songbirds and small mammals,
and serves as a corridor used
by wildlife such as deer and elk
that move between the river
and the extensive habitats of
Richmond Ridge. These features
and qualities present various
opportunities for ongoing
management, conservation, and
interpretation.
The Opportunities and Planning section of this management plan provides a framework for potential future uses and ac-
tions within the planning area with regard to land use restrictions, maintenance, natural resources, historical resources,
recreation and trails, and interpretation and education.
OPPORTUNITIES&P LANNINGI SSUES|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 69CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS68Photo credit: City of Aspen Staff Wheeler Ditch Diversion Structure
0 ft.100 ft. N
Historic Site Stream Property Boundary Margin Roa
r
ing
Fork River Ut
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Historic Site Boundary and Stream Margin
4.02 LAND USE
RESTRICTIONS
All three parcels within the
planning area are zoned (P) Park.
Ute Cemetery is also zoned (C)
Conservation, as a cemetery,
landmark, and National Historic
Register site. The riparian
portion of the planning area is
designated as a Stream Margin
area, carrying protections subject
to a Stream Margin Review for any
development activity within this
area which is measured 100 feet
inland from the high-water line
of the Roaring Fork River. City of
Aspen Land Use Code describes
specific requirements for land
and airspace within the 100-foot
stream margin to protect the river,
its tributaries, and riparian zones.
The Ute Cemetery is a designated
City of Aspen historic landmark
site, and is listed under the
heading, Designated Landmarks
Outside of the Historic Districts,
in The Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmark Sites and Structures,
updated February 2022. This
designation was made via
Ordinance 15 Series of 1973 (See
appendix for document).
As described in section 2.05,
the City of Aspen has entered
into several non-diversion
agreements with the Colorado
Water Conservation Board.
Single-year pilot agreements
were made in 2013 and 2014, to
be enacted when streamflow in
the Roaring Fork River was less
than 32 cfs at the Wheeler Ditch
headgate. A longer-term, 5-in-
10-year agreement made in 2016
has boosted streamflows during
five of ten years. This streamflow
restoration project in which
the City reduces water volume
diverted into the Wheeler Ditch
while protecting and maintaining
its water rights, was developed
by the City of Aspen and the
Colorado Water Trust to restore
streamflow to the Roaring Fork
River in the reach that flows
through the city during dry years.
Funding for this project comes
from Pitkin County Healthy
Rivers and Streams Board, ESPN,
Inc, Aspen Skiing Company’s
Environment Foundation, and
Bonneville Environmental
Foundation.
Ute Cemetery is managed as an
inactive, historic cemetery, and
new burials are not permitted.
Colorado Revised Statutes
Section 24-80-1302 addresses
the discovery of unmarked
human graves and requires
specific procedures. Any
excavation work for utilities,
trails, etc. in or adjacent to Ute
Cemetery requires review and
permitting processes through
Aspen’s Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC), City of
Aspen Planning Department,
City of Aspen Engineering
Department, and Pitkin County
Planning and Zoning. Possible
involvement with the coroner and
state archaeologist may also be
required.
Please see Section 2.05 Existing
Plans and Policies for detailed
information on zoning and other
land use considerations.
OPPORTUNITIES&P LANNINGI SSUES|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 71CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS70Photo credit: City of Aspen Staff Split rail boundary between Ute Park and Ute Cemetery
4.03 MAINTENANCE
Various opportunities exist with
regard to maintenance in the
planning area. For the Ute Ceme-
tery parcel, completing perimeter
fencing may be explored to serve
as a cemetery boundary identifier
and to limit entry to the formal
entrance off Ute Avenue and the
two footpaths that enter from Ute
Park. Additional opportunities
related to fencing include repair
of the natural picket fence along
the Ute Avenue boundary of the
cemetery, and removal of other
broken, remnant fence sections in
both the cemetery’s other bound-
ary areas and in the Ute Park
parcel. Consider maintaining a
buffer zone of thick, native vege-
tation around the perimeter of the
cemetery.
Further opportunities exist
to enhance stabilization and
preservation of historic grave
markers and enclosures, as
described in the 2024 Historic
Preservation Plan and detailed in
section 4.05 Historical Resources.
There is an opportunity to
selectively manage vegetation
within the cemetery to keep it
clear of gravestones and other
graveyard elements, and to
maintain the open nature of
meadow spaces within this parcel
as woody vegetation continues to
fill in these spaces.
Regarding security, opportunities
exist to enhance regular visits by
staff and attentive maintenance
to give the impression that the
community values the cemetery
and that is it watched over.
4.04 NATURAL
RESOURCES
While it is a relatively small
property, the 7.571-acre planning
area hosts a remarkable diversity
of plant species and offers
important connectivity to deer,
elk, and other wildlife moving
between the extensive habitats of
Richmond Ridge and the Roaring
Fork River. Various opportunities
exist to support or enhance
natural resources within the
planning area.
The nature of Ute Cemetery as
sacred ground has preserved
areas of glacial landforms and
patches of native vegetation,
making it a potential reserve for
local plant genetics and an area
of valuable pollinator habitat.
The river riparian zone is high
quality habitat for both plants
and animals. Opportunities and
planning pertaining to natural
resources within the planning area
center primarily on possibilities
and recommendations for
protecting, enhancing, and
restoring the various ecological
zones found on the property.
Opportunities also exist to
enhance adaptive management
strategies for natural resources
within the planning area to allow
for adjustments and improvements
based on monitoring and
evaluation findings as climate and
other conditions change.
The following are the
recommendations pertaining
to vegetation and wildlife that
were developed by Colorado
Wildlife Science, LLC and Peak
Ecological Services, LLC as part
of their survey and report for the
planning area: Natural Resources
Baseline Report for the 2024
Growing Season, Ute Cemetery
Open Space, City of Aspen, Pitkin
County, Colorado, March 2024.
Vegetation
Recommendations
The report makes seven general
recommendations addressing
vegetation. Protection and
preservation of the high-quality
riparian corridor along the
Roaring Fork River is described
first. This recommendation
includes limiting vegetation
removal to noxious weed
treatments and hazard trees
and mentions avoiding any
understory thinning. Education
of adjacent landowners about
not removing vegetation is
also recommended; the report
mentions the observation of a
worker removing small trees on
the open space property adjacent
to a neighboring residence.
Any vegetation thinning or
fire mitigation work for fuel
reduction should be done outside
of songbird nesting season.
Any work that disturbs the soil
and existing native vegetation
should be managed to consider
and minimize invasive weed
implications.
Continued noxious weed
management using an integrated
approach is recommended.
This could incorporate mowing,
hand-pulling, weed-steaming,
selective herbicides, and cultural
techniques. Recommendations to
enhance pollinator habitat include
planting a diversity of native
wildflowers, providing nesting
and overwintering habitats,
limiting herbicide use, and visitor
education. Small-scale restoration
activities are recommended,
including planting riparian trees
and shrubs in the northern portion
of the planning area and restoring
the social trail accessing the river.
The report recommends
preserving and enhancing the
historical iris in the cemetery,
including dividing and monitoring
for pathogens. The final
vegetation recommendation is
to consider utilizing the planning
area as a repository for heritage
and heirloom plant collections as
a way of preserving botanical and
cultural history.
Opportunities
Vegetation
• Preserve the river riparian
corridor
• Educate adjacent
landowners to prevent
vegetation impacts on open
space
• Continue noxious weed
management with integrated
weed management approach
• Enhance pollinator habitat
• Conduct small-scale
restoration activities
• Preserve historical iris in
Ute Cemetery
• Consider utilizing Ute
Cemetery as a heritage and
heirloom plant repository
OPPORTUNITIES&P LANNINGI SSUES|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 73CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS72Photo credit: City of Aspen Staff Photo credit: City of Aspen Staff Dense Vegetation
Childs burial enclosure
Wildlife Recommendations
Recommendations for wildlife are
based, in part, on the vegetation
management recommendations
described above, most of which
would also benefit wildlife in
improving songbird habitat, forage
for black bears, and cover for elk
and mule deer. The report also
recommends restoring existing
social trails and preventing new
ones, which will support current
wildlife uses. Responsible dog
management with either strongly
encouraged or required leash
use in addition to providing
interpretive information to
educate dog owners about wildlife
disturbance is recommended. If
deemed necessary, any herbicide
use should be carefully applied
using backpack sprayers and
avoiding songbird nesting season
between May 15 to July 31.
References and Resources
Materials and references to
support management of the
planning area are provided in
the Natural Resources Baseline
Report Appendix, including
documentation tables, ecological
references for the applicable
reach of the Roaring Fork River,
full lists of plants and animals,
information on species of various
conservation concern levels and
the probability and timing of
their presence, and requirements
related to species of concern.
Additional Natural Re-
sources Opportunities
It is recommended to explore
current and future impacts of
climate change on the planning
area with regard to resource
allocation (specifically diverted
ditch water) while balancing
multiple priorities (such as
maintaining minimum river
streamflows and irrigating city
trees and landscaping), and any
appropriate adjustments to the
City’s non-diverson agreements
with the Colorado Water
Conservation Board.
4.05 HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
Historical resources within the
planning area consist of the
historic landscape and graveyard
elements of Ute Cemetery and
the Wheeler Ditch, established in
1880 and 1882, respectively.
Opportunities and planning
related to Ute Cemetery are
described in the 2024 Historic
Preservation Plan for Ute
Cemetery, which includes detailed
information and options for
management of the overall site
and its historic elements. This
plan also references the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation which provides
best practice guidelines for any
conservation or preservation
work on gravestones and other
cemetery artifacts.
Planning items and opportunities
related to the cemetery include
light, periodic cleaning of the
brick and sandstone entrance
gateway structures; light cleaning
of inscribed monuments inside
main entrance; updating the
regulations sign; periodic clearing
of vegetation to maintain visibility
of graveyard elements; addressing
unstable branches or trees that
endanger historic elements where
they may fall; explore painting
or treating historic woodwork,
although a “return to nature”
approach is the more practical
recommendation due to the
severe state of wood degradation
in these elements; documentation
of wooden elements; and
inspecting and cleaning of marble
gravestones. Markers that sit low
to the ground may be raised and
leveled by a conservator.
Opportunities for general care of
the burial area include instructing
maintenance crews and volunteers
with guidelines for avoiding
inadvertent damage to historic
elements. Seeking out current
best practices for cemetery
restoration is recommended
as improvements evolve in this
sector. Finally, opportunities exist
to enhance organization and
thoroughness of documentation
for Ute Cemetery so that this
information remains accessible to
researchers and staff.
Planning and opportunities
related to the historical Wheeler
Ditch, which is in use and
maintained by the City of Aspen
Utilities Department, center
primarily around interpretation;
see Section 4.07.
Opportunities
History
• Periodic cleaning of
the brick and sandstone
entrance gateway structures
• Light cleaning of inscribed
monuments inside main
entrance
• Updating the regulations
sign
• Periodic clearing of
vegetation to maintain
visibility of graveyard
elements; addressing
unstable branches or trees
that endanger historic
elements where they may
fall
• Documentation of wooden
elements
• Inspecting and cleaning of
marble gravestones.
• Markers that sit low to the
ground may be raised and
leveled by a conservator.
Opportunities
Wildlife
• Recommendations for
vegetation will also benefit
wildlife
• Restore existing social
trails; prevent new ones
• Promote responsible dog
management
• Educate dog owners about
wildlife disturbance
• Avoid songbird nesting
season for any herbicide use
OPPORTUNITIES&P LANNINGI SSUES|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 75CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS74Photo credit: City of Aspen Staff Tunnel Feature Ute Park
4.06 RECREATION
AND TRAILS
Recreation within the planning
area is limited to walking, trail
running, cemetery studies,
nature studies, playground play,
picnicking, and fishing. A paved,
multi-use trail on part of the
planning area’s perimeter and
various footpaths within the
planning area as well as fishing
access, playground equipment,
and a children’s sculpture provide
the primary recreational features
within the planning area.
Planning and opportunities
related to recreation and trails
include considering installing a
wayfinding sign at the intersection
of Cooper Avenue and Original
Street to enhance site approach
and closing a social trail on a very
steep bank between the Wheeler
Ditch Trail and the Roaring
Fork River. There are further
opportunities to close and restore
other social trails developing
within the cemetery, and to
manage camping that occasionally
occurs in the planning area.
Evaluate the tunnel feature in
Ute park for safety and consider
modifications. Provide better
access and clearing for Lou Wille
play feature.
Regarding ADA access, it is
recommended to observe the
exception to ADA guidelines as
stated in Section 16.1.1, referencing
compliance that would cause
substantial harm to cultural,
historic, religious, or significant
natural features or characteristics.
Therefore, no improvements or
widening of the paths is advised.
4.07
INTERPRETATION
AND EDUCATION
Opportunities exist to enhance
and expand interpretive material
available to visitors at Ute
Cemetery and Ute Park. Both
sites harbor interesting and
significant historic and cultural
relics and associated stories as
well as natural history elements
that can greatly enhance the
visitor experience throughout the
planning area. This material may
also, to a lesser extent, encourage
and support appropriate conduct
within the cemetery.
Ute Cemetery
The Parks and Open Space
Department currently subscribes
to Storycrafter, a digital
interpretive and wayfinding web-
based app which is in use at the
John Denver Sanctuary where it
meets the need to convey a large
volume of wayfinding and relevant
interpretive content in a small
space where signage must be kept
to a minimum. Consider exploring
the use of Storycrafter as a
vehicle for offering existing and
additional interpretive content
for both Ute Cemetery and Ute
Park. This should include the
material developed for the current
paper interpretive brochure
for Ute Cemetery (broken up
into clickable topics) as well as
additional content which could
expand on historical and natural
history topics. Consider also
stocking the paper brochure on
site for those not using smart
phones. Field test the strength of
the cell signal on site to determine
whether a QR code would be
viable there.
Additional topics for Ute
Cemetery digital content
may include: biographical
stories of people buried in Ute
Cemetery (including previous
and new research by Tatanka
and Associates), and a scavenger
hunt (carefully designed to keep
participants on footpaths and
a safe distance from historical
elements). Historical images may
be added to help bring these
stories to life.
Additional topics for Ute Park
digital content may include: the
history of the Wheeler Ditch
and the water monopoly scandal
between B. Clark Wheeler and
the City, a brief focus piece on
pasque flower natural history,
information about the park’s
dedication to the Ute People
and the Ute Summit, the story of
Fritz and Fabi Benedict and their
contributions to the community of
Aspen including their gifts of land
at this site.
It is recommended to keep
interpretive signage to a minimum
at these small properties, utilizing
the above digital approach
rather than creating physical
signage, or creating only one or
two signs in combination with
the digital content. One key to
successful digital interpretive
content is adequate promotion
of this resource, and that is
most effective through signage
on site: adding the QR code to
any/all existing signage. If using
Storycrafter, consider hiring
Bart Marable (at Storycrafter) to
design content for consistency of
appearance and use.
Consider translating interpretive
material into Spanish, offered
as digital content. Promote this
specifically with the QR code
on appropriate signs within the
planning area.
It is recommended to make
messaging about gravestone
rubbings consistent among signs,
brochure, and digital content.
Decide whether rubbings are
permitted or prohibited, in
keeping with preservation and
protection recommendations
for grave markers. Consider
suggesting photography as an
alternative to rubbings. Consider
“Cemetery Etiquette” as an
alternative title for the regulations
sign.
Ute Park
Opportunities exist at Ute Park
for providing digital content,
as described above. If pursuing
this approach to interpretive
material, consider developing
the story of the Wheeler Ditch
and B. Clark Wheeler’s attempt
to monopolize the water of Ute
Springs. The Wheeler Ditch story
provides fascinating insight into
the community and characters
of early Aspen, the challenges of
solving municipal problems such
as managing water quality in a
town filled with livestock, and
the tragic end of Ute Springs.
It is recommended to explore
existing signage for appropriate
ways to make a QR code available
and promote the digital content
within Ute Park; a small QR code
sign could be made for the picnic
table in the playground area. It
is also recommended to link all
digital interpretive content and
any wayfinding elements into the
same web-based app portal.
Further digital content pertaining
to Ute Park may include the
story of the Ute People and the
dedication of Ute Park.
Planning Area
The opportunity exists to provide
wayfinding information for the
planning area, specifically as a
component of digital content.
This element would help visitors
become aware of various areas
within the cemetery and their
locations, such as the rows of Civil
War veterans’ graves. In Ute Park,
this element could help visitors
find the Wheeler Ditch, which is
located among riparian understory
vegetation by the river.
If developing digital interpretive
content, it is recommended to link
it all together for the planning
area, so that visitors can access
a menu for all content through a
single QR code.
Opportunities
Interpretation
and Education
• Consider exploring the
use of Storycrafter as a
vehicle for offering existing
and additional interpretive
content for both Ute
Cemetery and Ute Park.
Opportunities
Recreation and
Trails
• Consider installing a
wayfinding sign at the
intersection of Cooper
Avenue and Original Street
to enhance site approach
• Close the social trail on a
very steep bank between
the Wheeler Ditch Trail and
the Roaring Fork River.
• Close and restore other
social trails developing
within the cemetery, and
to manage camping that
occasionally occurs in the
planning area.
• Evaluate tunnel feature
in Ute Park for safety and
consider modifcations
• Provide better access and
clearing for Lou Wille play
feature.
MANAGEMENTACTIONS|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 77CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS76
MANAGEMENTACTIONS
The following management actions will allow the community to continue to enjoy the many benefits provided
by the Ute properties, such as its scenic views, and its historical, natural, and recreational values. This
document is meant to serve the Parks Department for a period of ten years, at which time this plan will be
reviewed and updated.
Updates may occur prior to the ten-year period if conditions or the wishes of the community warrant an earlier
review. In general, there should be no change to the overall look and function of the Ute properties except for
minor modifications that do not change the basic character and uses of the property.
MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
M1 Repair and maintain fencing on the Ute Cemetery property and mark property corners.
M2 Work toward long term improvements of the Wheeler Ditch inlet infrastructure.
M3 Formalize interior circulation patterns for the Ute Cemetery and Ute Park parcels.
M4 Formalize public art installation.
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
NR1 Develop ongoing invasive weed management plan for Ute properties
NR2 Enhance pollinator and riparian habitat
NR3 Manage vegetation for habitat improvement, wildfire prevention and to preserve existing understory and
groundcover plants.
NR4 Manage the development of social trails to limit resource damage
HISTORIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
HR1 Manage vegetation within the Ute Cemetery to ensure preservation of historic elements
HR2 Restore and stabilize historic grave markers and other historic elements per recommendations from the Ute
Cemetery Preservation Plan
HR3 Enhance organization and thoroughness of documentation for Ute Cemetery
HR4 Update the property regulations to reflect modern preservation best practices for cemeteries.
RECREATION AND TRAILS MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
RT1 Formalize interior circulation patterns for the Ute Cemetery and Ute Park parcels.
RT2 Evaluate historic play structures and identify necessary improvements
RT3 Improve access to the site and area through additional signage and improved parking for properties and Ute trail.
RT4 Monitor development within the Roaring Fork corridor for trail easement opportunities.
RT5 Evaluate the Southwest entrance to the site for ADA accessible trail
INTERPRETATION AND EDUCATION MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
IE1 Update and install regulatory signage.
IE2 Develop interpretative panel(s) for the Ute cemetery.
IE3 Partner with local organizations to provide interpretative tours of the properties.
The management actions in this document have been developed based on considerations including the conditions of the
planning area, input from professional evaluations, comments from the community and stakeholders, and administrative
direction. The overall desired outcome is that the open space should be conserved and enhanced. image credit City of Aspen StaffBoundary Marker Ute Cemetery
MANAGEMENTACTIONS|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 79CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS78Photo credit: City of Aspen Staff Photo credit: City of Aspen Staff Barbed wire removal 2024
Headstones and vegetation
MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
5.01 Maintenance
M1. Repair/ maintain and
extend fencing on the Ute
Cemetery property.
Desired Outcome:
Continuous fencing will formalize
entry and exit points to the
cemetery and limit damage
to the historical resources. In
addition, the continuous fence will
demarcate the property boundary
and discourage encroachment by
neighboring properties.
Tasks:
• Maintain/repair the natural wood
picket fence that designates
the “front” boundary of the Ute
Cemetery parcel paralleling Ute
Avenue.
• Replace and/or install split rail
fence around the rest of the cem-
etery’s perimeter, providing gaps
for wildlife access.
• Address the length of split rail
fence and wooden gate along
southeast edge of Ute Park prop-
erty (remove or repair/replace?).
• Remove the short section of
barbed wire/t-post fencing that
extends downslope toward the
river from the end of this split rail
fence.
• Educate neighboring proper-
ty owners as to the property
boundary and refraining from any
tree-topping, vegetation trim-
ming, or other impacts on City
property.
M2. Work toward long
term improvements of the
Wheeler Ditch inlet infra-
structure.
Desired Outcome:
Improve the efficiency,
appearance and level of
maintenance needed at the
Wheeler Ditch Inlet structure.
Tasks:
• Work the City of Aspen Utility
department to identify proper
design improvements to the
headgate infrastructure.
• Clean up broken sandbags and
other materials associated with
the Wheeler Ditch.
• Build up the rock structure that
forms and bolsters the intake
channel (ie. to eliminate the sand-
bags if possible).
M3. Formalize interior
circulation patterns for
the Ute Cemetery and Ute
Park parcels.
Desired Outcome:
Formalize the circulation system
within the cemetery to improve
the user experience and protect
historic and natural resources.
Tasks:
• Work with City Sta to identify
desired circulation route.
• Improve/establish desired prima-
ry circulation system.
• Restore social trails.
• Formalize secondary trail network
to gravesites and throughout the
cemetery
• Improve the vehicular access cor-
ridor in Ute Park to reduce visual
impacts.
• Close and restore the steep
social/dog trail that goes down
to the river from the so-surface
trail along the river blu In Ute
Park.
M4. Formalize public art
installation.
Desired Outcome:
Reveal and activate the existing
Wille sculpture on the property.
Tasks:
• Install signage describing the
work and artist.
• Clear vegetation around the
sculpture to provide viewing and
allow access for play.
• Establish a formal trail to installa-
tion from the Ute Park parcel.
• Close and revegetate trail origi-
nating from Ute Avenue trail.
MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
5.02 Natural
Resources
NR1. Develop ongoing in-
vasive weed management
plan for Ute properties.
Desired Outcome:
State-listed noxious weeds are
controlled to prevent them from
out competing native plants
for space, light, water and/or
nutrients, reducing quality of plant
communities, leaving less valuable
forage for wildlife, interrupting
native pollinator relationships
with native plants, changing soil
dynamics, etc., and changing
ecosystem processes/functions.
Tasks:
• Continue work with contractor
to control invasives on an annual
basis
• Monitor noxious weed presence
to evaluate control eorts over
time. Sta will work together to
identify any major infestations
and/or new vectors and prioritize
control eorts accordingly.
• Look for opportunities to re-seed
with native wildflowers
• Avoid herbicides between May
15 and July 31 to protect nesting
songbirds
NR2. Enhance pollinator
and riparian habitat
Desired Outcome:
Use disturbed portion of the
properties as opportunities to
establish pollinator friendly
habitat. Structural diversity is
added with woody vegetation to
bolster bank cohesion and provide
connectivity in riparian shrub
habitat along the Roaring Fork
River.
Tasks:
• Limit herbicide use; use targeted
pollinator-safe options
• Install bee boxes
• Inform visitors about the impor-
tance of pollinators
• No milkweed stands exist to sup-
port Monarch butterflies, plant
a milkweed stand to encourage
Monarchs in Ute.
• Plant native riparian trees and
shrubs along the river to increase
habitat connectivity
NR3. Manage vegetation
for habitat improvement,
wildfire prevention and to
preserve existing understo-
ry and groundcover plants.
Desired Outcome:
The nature of Ute Cemetery as
sacred ground has preserved
areas of glacial landforms and
patches of native vegetation,
making it a potential reserve for
local plant genetics.
Tasks:
• Protect the large Douglas fir
trees that exist mainly within Ute
Cemetery with pheromone pack-
ets against Douglas fir beetle.
• Preserve of existing sunny loca-
tions where native plants cur-
rently exist by preventing woody
plant encroachment.
• Work with surrounding HOA’s
and property owners to preserve
existing vegetation within the
property boundary.
• Preserve historical iris in Ute
Cemetery
• Consider utilizing Ute Cemetery
as a heritage and heirloom plant
repository
• Periodic thinning of vegetation to
reduce wildfire risk and improve
wildlife habitat
NR4. Manage the develop-
ment of social trails to limit
resource damage.
Desired Outcome:
Formalize the circulation system
within the cemetery to improve
the user experience and protect
historic and natural resources.
Tasks:
• Work with City Sta to identify
desired circulation route.
• Improve/establish desired prima-
ry circulation system.
• Manage social trails.
• Formalize secondary trail network
to gravesites and throughout the
cemetery
• Close and restore the steep
social/dog trail that goes down
to the river from the so-surface
trail along the river blu In Ute
Park.
MANAGEMENTACTIONS|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 81CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS80 Photo credit: City of Aspen Staff Wooden grave enclosure 2024
MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
5.03 Historic
Resources
HR1. Manage Vegetation
within the Ute Cemetery
to ensure preservation of
historic elements
Desired Outcome:
Prevent further degradation
of historic resources through
ongoing maintenance and
management of vegetation.
Tasks:
• Remove overgrowth of woody
plants where they have obscured
grave sites and plots within Ute
Cemetery.
• Address unstable branches or
trees that endanger historic ele-
ments where they may fall.
HR2. Restore and stabilize
historic grave markers and
other historic elements per
recommendations from the
Ute Cemetery Preserva-
tion Plan.
Desired Outcome:
Protection of historic resources
through periodic review
and implementation of light
treatments.
Tasks:
• Light, periodic cleaning of the
brick and sandstone entrance
gateway structures; light cleaning
of inscribed monuments inside
main entrance;
• Explore painting or treating
historic woodwork, although a
“return to nature” approach is the
more practical recommendation
due to the severe state of wood
degradation in these elements;
• Documentation of wooden ele-
ments
• Inspecting and cleaning of marble
gravestones.
• Markers that sit low to the
ground may be raised and leveled
by a conservator.
HR3. Enhance organization
and thoroughness of doc-
umentation for Ute Ceme-
tery
Desired Outcome:
Organized and easily accessible
repository of existing
documentation of the site.
Tasks:
• Thoroughly document research
to date on the Ute properties and
organize in an accessible platform
for the public and sta.
HR4. Update the property
regulations to reflect mod-
ern preservation best prac-
tices for cemeteries.
Desired Outcome:
Ensure that site visitors are aware
of best practices when visiting
and viewing the Ute cemetery.
Tasks:
• Review recommendations provid-
ed in the Ute Cemetery Preserva-
tion plan
• Replace existing regulations sign
with modern site specific regula-
tions
MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
5.04 Recreation and
Trails
RT1: Formalize interior
circulation patterns for
the Ute Cemetery and Ute
Park parcels.
Desired Outcome:
Formalize the circulation system
within the cemetery to improve the
user experience and protect historic
and natural resources.
Tasks:
• Work with City Sta to identify
desired circulation route.
• Improve/establish desired prima-
ry circulation system.
• Restore social trails.
• Formalize secondary trail network
to gravesites and throughout the
cemetery
• Close and restore the steep
social/dog trail that goes down
to the river from the so-surface
trail along the river blu In Ute
Park.
RT2: Evaluate historic play
structures and identify
necessary improvements.
Desired Outcome:
Activate the existing play structures
through access or redevelopment.
Tasks:
• Install signage describing the
work and artist.
• Clear vegetation around the
sculpture to provide viewing and
allow access for play.
• Establish a formal trail to installa-
tion from the Ute Park parcel.
• Restore trail directly from Ute
Avenue trail.
• Remove and restore the old,
unsafe “mine tunnel” play feature
in Ute Park.
RT3: Improve access to
the site and area through
additional signage and
improved parking for prop-
erties and Ute trail.
Desired Outcome:
Safe access to the site and surround-
ing recreational opportunities.
Tasks:
• Improve parking area in ROW
and formalize as parking for Ute
Park, Ute Cemetery and Ute Trail
• Consider additional signage at
the end of Ute Avenue directing
users to the properties.
• Consider creating ADA access to
Ute park on the existing vehicular
access to the Wheeler Ditch area.
RT4: Monitor development
within the Roaring Fork
corridor for trail easement
opportunities.
Desired Outcome:
Additional trail and fishing ease-
ments within this portion of the
Roaring Fork corridor.
Tasks:
• Monitor development applica-
tions on the Roaring Fork river
between the Anderson property
and the Aspen club. Look for op-
portunities to work with landown-
ers to establish public access.
RT5: Evaluate the south-
west entrance to the site
for ADA accessible trail
Desired Outcome:
Create an ADA accessible trail that
accesses a portion of the site where
topography allows.
Tasks:
• Field evaluation of the south-
west entrance to the site and the
surrounding topography for the
purpose of establishing an ADA
accessible trail loop. Photo credit: City of Aspen Staff Soft surface path Ute Cemetery
MANAGEMENTACTIONS|UTECEMETERY MANAGEMENTPLAN 83CITYOFASPEN|PARKSOPENSPACEANDTRAILS82Photo credit: City of Aspen Staff Photo credit: City of Aspen Staff Granite monuments Looking East on the Wheeler Ditch Trail
MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
5.05 Interpretation
and Education
IE1: Update and install reg-
ulatory signage.
Desired Outcome:
Maintain signage with current
regulations.
Tasks:
• Review current conditions, infor-
mation and visibility of regulatory
signage.
• Replace outdated signage
• Develop messaging about re-
sponsible dog use in the ceme-
tery to reduce impacts to wildlife.
IE2: Develop interpretative
panel(s) for the Ute ceme-
tery.
Desired Outcome:
Educate visitors about the historic
/ cultural significance and natural
resource management of the area
and the management that has
occurred.
Tasks
• Develop a new welcome/inter-
pretive sign for Ute Cemetery
that includes a QR code through
which visitors may access the
digital brochure that provides in-
terpretive information about the
cemetery. *Edit the brochure to
include guidelines on gravestone
rubbing, as mentioned on the
site rules sign at the cemetery’s
entrance.
• Create interpretive material to
tell the story of the Wheeler
Ditch (originating in the 1880s out
of a situation involving monopoly/
unscrupulous business, public
health crises, public uprising, and
the loss of Ute Springs).
• Create a history scavenger hunt
to expand on the brochure’s con-
tent (digital access).
IE3: Partner with local
organizations to provide
interpretative tours of the
properties.
Desired Outcome:
Educate visitors about the historic
/ cultural significance of the area
and the management that has
occurred.
Tasks:
• Continue coordination with the
Aspen Historical Society and
Aspen Center for Environmental
Studies to provide educational
tours of the cemetery.